4 ms·

So I commented on your first paragraph just to make a joke, then I read your second. There is no reason to believe that cross-party unity would solve anything,

So I commented on your first paragraph just to make a joke, then I read your second. There is no reason to believe that cross-party unity would solve anything, and plenty to make us think it would make things way worse. Two parties that are friendly and cozy with each other are equivalent to a single party. That will leave US voters with no real choice at the ballot box, and remove the only real repercussion to a politician - the fear that their opponent will take them to task during the next election. Partisan politics is the most powerful tool we have to preventing politicians from running rampant with power. Heaven help us if they ever unite against their common enemy - the people.

tormeh 12y ago
Not really. Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite for progress. Lots of parties have friendly relations without society collapsing. Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite for progress. Ask a professional diplomat whether this idea is true. Israelis and Palestinians achieve compromises all the time -- they're fragile and short-lived, but they're certainly compromises. Unions and management come to compromises regularly, after sometimes bloody demonstrations (in the early days of the organized labor movement). In a now-famous story from 1943 Berlin, a group of wives of Jewish men protested and demonstrated against the regime's plan to round up and exterminate their husbands. Because the demonstration took place in Berlin, because of its size and international visibility, and because the wives were not themselves Jewish, the Nazis reached a compromise -- the men were released. Reference: http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-release-their-jewish-husbands-rosenstrasse-protest-1943 http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-re... Quote: "As the women continued to protest at Rosenstrasse into March 6, the German leadership finally gave in, even as 25 of the intermarried Jews were being deported to Auschwitz. The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Goebbels released the remaining intermarried Jews in an attempt to maintain the visage of conformity in Berlin. The protests of Aryan women against the internment of their Jewish husbands had shown open dissent to the Nazi program and for Goebbels (with Hitler’s approval), it was more important to eliminate this dissent by releasing those Jews than to allow such dissent to be visible to other Germans or international bodies. Thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned. While twenty-five of the detainees were not released, thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned to Berlin." > Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise ... In reality, this is proven false every day. > Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric. Your ignorance of both current events and history is embarrassing.
  - coriny 12y ago
    Though I think he is correct that politics does not need to be antagonistic to prevent "politicians running rampant with power". Plenty of democracies use more collaborative politics than the USA (e.g. the Polder model of democracy in the netherlands). And I think most people would agree that the US republicans & democrats could engage more constructively while maintaining ideologically distinct positions (and not turning the country into a single party fascist state).
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > I think most people would agree that the US republicans & democrats could engage more constructively while maintaining ideologically distinct positions ... Yes, absolutely. My point was that compromise doesn't require that the parties share values or show mutual respect -- history proves otherwise.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Dude, those are really good examples! I will reconsider my opinion immediately! Not. How do you even write that shit with a straight face?
    - lutusp 12y ago
      Which of the uncontroversial historical facts I posted is causing you the most personal anguish?
      - tormeh 12y ago
        My problem is that while they fit the literal definition of compromise, they don't really achieve much. Those are barely ceasefires, and not much progress. So compromise without friendly relations does exist, it just really really sucks. The spirit of my criticism still stands.
        lutusp 12y ago
        > My problem is that while they fit the literal definition of compromise, they don't really achieve much. Compared to what? The OP's contention was that "Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise". I proved that false. You're now changing the subject. > So compromise without friendly relations does exist, it just really really sucks. So the wives of the doomed Jewish men getting back their husbands really, really sucked? You need to learn a bit of history -- it's replete with valuable compromises between antagonistic parties.
msandford 12y ago
I think poof31's idea of cross-party unity is less about the PARTIES and more about the POPULATION. Meaning that the political parties do a pretty slick divide & conquer on highly polarizing topics that give half the population a reason to "hate" the other half despite the fact that both generally want the same thing. Most people actually don't want regulatory capture since most people aren't in a position to benefit from it. But it happens because half the people "want" it on some topics because their party says "this is necessary for us not to get screwed!" and people generally go with the party line. And then on other topics the other party convinces its constituents that this other kind of regulation is necessary (which again has lots of regulatory capture built in) and their voters generally agree and support it. If it wasn't for the few highly polarizing topics splitting the population pretty evenly some stuff could actually get done. Worse is that the vast majority of people would actually support rewriting the tax code to greatly simplify it and close loopholes because most people aren't in a position to benefit from said loopholes. But this doesn't get any traction because the representatives from both parties know that they can't for the sake of campaign donations. This is literally in the interests of the people but it doesn't happen because it's not in the interests of the representatives. Being able to realize that the people of the other party are good folks and that the representatives of both parties aren't so good would be a huge win to trying to solve a lot of the legalized corruption that makes Washington so dysfunctional.
mikeash 12y ago
Where does he advocate cross-party unity? He criticizes blind partisanship, and there are plenty of better alternatives to that besides just melding the two major parties into one. Paradoxically, the current situation of extreme partisanship is close to a single unified party. The parties choose small wedge issues to fight over, and the rest is generally untouched. I won't go so far as to say "both parties are the same", but the differences aren't huge. Health care reform is a big wedge issue right now, and the two sides basically boil down to tweaking the dial on just how much private sector involvement there should be. Foreign policy is portrayed as a big divide, but the two parties seem to just switch sides on that depending on which one has the Presidency. There's no place in a major party for someone who wants to vote on the basis of getting out of the Global War on Terror, or for drug legalization, or single-payer health care, or many other such things. Right now, the parties don't have to actually compete very much. Most people have chosen a side and stick with it no matter what. If we can get away from the idea that the other side is evil, that would increase the competition between them, not decrease it.

tormeh 12y ago

Not really. Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite for progress. Lots of parties have friendly relations without society collapsing. Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric.

lutusp 12y ago
> Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite for progress. Ask a professional diplomat whether this idea is true. Israelis and Palestinians achieve compromises all the time -- they're fragile and short-lived, but they're certainly compromises. Unions and management come to compromises regularly, after sometimes bloody demonstrations (in the early days of the organized labor movement). In a now-famous story from 1943 Berlin, a group of wives of Jewish men protested and demonstrated against the regime's plan to round up and exterminate their husbands. Because the demonstration took place in Berlin, because of its size and international visibility, and because the wives were not themselves Jewish, the Nazis reached a compromise -- the men were released. Reference: http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-release-their-jewish-husbands-rosenstrasse-protest-1943 http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-re... Quote: "As the women continued to protest at Rosenstrasse into March 6, the German leadership finally gave in, even as 25 of the intermarried Jews were being deported to Auschwitz. The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Goebbels released the remaining intermarried Jews in an attempt to maintain the visage of conformity in Berlin. The protests of Aryan women against the internment of their Jewish husbands had shown open dissent to the Nazi program and for Goebbels (with Hitler’s approval), it was more important to eliminate this dissent by releasing those Jews than to allow such dissent to be visible to other Germans or international bodies. Thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned. While twenty-five of the detainees were not released, thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned to Berlin." > Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise ... In reality, this is proven false every day. > Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric. Your ignorance of both current events and history is embarrassing.
- coriny 12y ago
  Though I think he is correct that politics does not need to be antagonistic to prevent "politicians running rampant with power". Plenty of democracies use more collaborative politics than the USA (e.g. the Polder model of democracy in the netherlands). And I think most people would agree that the US republicans & democrats could engage more constructively while maintaining ideologically distinct positions (and not turning the country into a single party fascist state).
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > I think most people would agree that the US republicans & democrats could engage more constructively while maintaining ideologically distinct positions ... Yes, absolutely. My point was that compromise doesn't require that the parties share values or show mutual respect -- history proves otherwise.
- tormeh 12y ago
  Dude, those are really good examples! I will reconsider my opinion immediately! Not. How do you even write that shit with a straight face?
  - lutusp 12y ago
    Which of the uncontroversial historical facts I posted is causing you the most personal anguish?
    - tormeh 12y ago
      My problem is that while they fit the literal definition of compromise, they don't really achieve much. Those are barely ceasefires, and not much progress. So compromise without friendly relations does exist, it just really really sucks. The spirit of my criticism still stands.
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > My problem is that while they fit the literal definition of compromise, they don't really achieve much. Compared to what? The OP's contention was that "Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise". I proved that false. You're now changing the subject. > So compromise without friendly relations does exist, it just really really sucks. So the wives of the doomed Jewish men getting back their husbands really, really sucked? You need to learn a bit of history -- it's replete with valuable compromises between antagonistic parties.

msandford 12y ago

I think poof31's idea of cross-party unity is less about the PARTIES and more about the POPULATION. Meaning that the political parties do a pretty slick divide & conquer on highly polarizing topics that give half the population a reason to "hate" the other half despite the fact that both generally want the same thing. Most people actually don't want regulatory capture since most people aren't in a position to benefit from it. But it happens because half the people "want" it on some topics because their party says "this is necessary for us not to get screwed!" and people generally go with the party line. And then on other topics the other party convinces its constituents that this other kind of regulation is necessary (which again has lots of regulatory capture built in) and their voters generally agree and support it. If it wasn't for the few highly polarizing topics splitting the population pretty evenly some stuff could actually get done. Worse is that the vast majority of people would actually support rewriting the tax code to greatly simplify it and close loopholes because most people aren't in a position to benefit from said loopholes. But this doesn't get any traction because the representatives from both parties know that they can't for the sake of campaign donations. This is literally in the interests of the people but it doesn't happen because it's not in the interests of the representatives. Being able to realize that the people of the other party are good folks and that the representatives of both parties aren't so good would be a huge win to trying to solve a lot of the legalized corruption that makes Washington so dysfunctional.

mikeash 12y ago

Where does he advocate cross-party unity? He criticizes blind partisanship, and there are plenty of better alternatives to that besides just melding the two major parties into one. Paradoxically, the current situation of extreme partisanship is close to a single unified party. The parties choose small wedge issues to fight over, and the rest is generally untouched. I won't go so far as to say "both parties are the same", but the differences aren't huge. Health care reform is a big wedge issue right now, and the two sides basically boil down to tweaking the dial on just how much private sector involvement there should be. Foreign policy is portrayed as a big divide, but the two parties seem to just switch sides on that depending on which one has the Presidency. There's no place in a major party for someone who wants to vote on the basis of getting out of the Global War on Terror, or for drug legalization, or single-payer health care, or many other such things. Right now, the parties don't have to actually compete very much. Most people have chosen a side and stick with it no matter what. If we can get away from the idea that the other side is evil, that would increase the competition between them, not decrease it.