|
Post by omaha on May 9, 2012 17:24:08 GMT -5
I hope you realize how funny (as in ironic funny, not ha ha funny) that paragraph is. Not really, no. Perhaps because you are accepting campaign promises as reality, then.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on May 9, 2012 18:51:38 GMT -5
As for the desirability of the mushy middle, that's what's gotten us to where we are...which is to say, that's what's gotten us to the brink of financial insolvency. We have the left that won't cut spending and the right that won't raise taxes, so we compromise and increase spending and cut taxes. How is that mushy middle working? Well you've got a point there, I'll admit. But my contention is that noone can get the super majority required to take any action (and then be responsible for it). It's not the mushy middle's fault. They could team up with whatever wing has the mo of the moment and be a moderating influence and GET SOMETHING DONE. Now, there's no hope. It's not the middle's fault. It's the system that bottles up all initiative and action. Therefore causing great frustration, and hence, polarization. , . . . , or something like that. (your yardage may vary depending on how big your hook is.)
|
|
|
Post by Doug on May 9, 2012 19:49:38 GMT -5
Start with the mushy middle has gotten us bankrupt.
And our government is set up to make it hard to do anything. Congress, presidents, and bureaucrats have been working for 200+ years to screw that up. Why should there be compromise committees. Either the Senate or the House passes the others bill or it doesn't. Why should there be any committees at all.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on May 9, 2012 20:35:09 GMT -5
Start with the mushy middle has gotten us bankrupt. And our government is set up to make it hard to do anything. Congress, presidents, and bureaucrats have been working for 200+ years to screw that up. Why should there be compromise committees. Either the Senate or the House passes the others bill or it doesn't. Why should there be any committees at all. Our government is not "set up to make it hard to do anything," our government is set up to prevent an abuse of power by any one person or group. The fact that the checks and balances make it harder to get something done is an unintended but accepted result. Our government was formed from a compromise. A lot of hard choices and sacrifices were made. Our founding fathers were reasonable enough to know that they had to work together to put together a plan that would unify and strengthen the country. I'm pretty sure they weren't planning on this generation's politicians and voters, many of whom would rather see the whole system grind to a halt and fail before giving up one inch of their ideology and/or pride.
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,390
|
Post by Tamarack on May 10, 2012 7:58:55 GMT -5
As a long-term member of the Mushy Middle, I list my political affiliation as "proudly independent and unapologetically moderate". This leads me to shout out the Moderate Battle Cry:
"For every complex problem there is a simple wrong answer"
In a quieter voice I frequently state "reasonable people can disagree"*
I have no problem with the concept of living under a government with rules, regulations, checks and balances. I object strenously to unwarranted govenrment intrusion into my personal life or business dealings. It boils down to whether my actions or omissions or your actions or omissions are harming other citizens. On the business side, my life has been spent dealing with environmental regulation. I am glad We The People, through our elected representatives, have passed laws stating that a business can't dump hazardous wastes out the back door. Similarly, businesses rightfully object to constant government inspections and constant government paperwork to prove they are complying with reasonable laws (the laws are reasonable, the paperwork isn't).
Passing and living under reasonable laws requires lots of deliberation and even compromise. To that end I cling to the Mushy Middle.
* In contract law, there is reference to how provisions would be interpreted by "a reasonable and prudent man", which leads to the question: "Who is this guy?". I have talked with many female attorneys who assert there is no such thing as a reasonable and prudent man.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on May 10, 2012 8:29:10 GMT -5
Good post, Tamarack.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 10:50:23 GMT -5
What Tamarack said. I'm with him in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on May 10, 2012 11:53:30 GMT -5
yup
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2012 17:30:18 GMT -5
There was a brief time when the american left despised moderates. Didn't work so well, and they totally lost the mushy middle. Now, it is the right wingers that seem to be in full-blown frenzy to purge the ideologically impure, and isolate themselves from the moderates they have come to despise. Watch out what you ask for...
It's sometimes necessary to remind the politically-minded that, while they tend to think they have some inerrant view of politics, it's the mushy middle that decides who's gonna drive. Always have. That's never changed. There's probably more people who really don't give a damn about political ideologies than we care to contemplate, and in most elections, they are the deciding factor. I can make a pretty good case that the saving grace of the US political system is the mushy middle. keeps the pendulum in check, and enforces moderation on all of the party-loyalists. Both the left and the right reckon IF ONLY they could have it their way, they'd fix everything. But, if you're smart enough to join the mushy middle, you already know the truth: ALL POLITICAL IDEALISTS ARE FULL OF SHIT, AND THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE A THIRD-WORLD CESSPOOL IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE MUSHY MIDDLE.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on May 10, 2012 18:23:44 GMT -5
Well said, dharmabum.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on May 10, 2012 18:50:12 GMT -5
Dharma that would sound good if the majority of elected Republicans weren't moderates. Comparing Mutt to Obama is that there is no comparison as the only difference is skin color.
Compromise is the art of surrender. Either you believe what you say and act that way or you are a hypocrite. Changing your belief is something different.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on May 10, 2012 19:11:54 GMT -5
"ALL POLITICAL IDEALISTS ARE FULL OF SHIT, AND THIS COUNTRY WOULD BE A THIRD-WORLD CESSPOOL IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE MUSHY MIDDLE."
If you substituted ideologues for idealists, I'd concur with the first clause. I think idealism is a good thing. The second clause is clearly correct. Our Constitution, for starters, was the product of wholesale compromise.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on May 10, 2012 19:14:16 GMT -5
Which gets to the heart of it.
In politics, calls for "moderation" always mean "I want the other guy to abandon his ideology and adopt mine".
There has never been a politician stand up and say "All this partisanship and strict adherence to ideology is killing us and preventing us from solving the nation's problems. Therefore, I am abandoning my objections and my ideology and will vote with my opponents."
|
|
|
Post by millring on May 14, 2012 17:20:08 GMT -5
It will prove a Pyrrhic victory for the right.
Yes, it would be nice if Republicans stood for something. Yes, it's bothersome that Lugar's measuring stick for success begins and ends with whether or not he can "work across the aisle". Yes, it's beyond bizarre that he will be retiring in Virginia -- his home for thirty years -- and he doesn't even own property (beyond that of corporate ownership of farmland, and that being headquartered in a different State) in the State he is suppose to REPRESENT.
But Donnelly is a winsome, conservative Democrat. We will merely have flipped back to our comfortable State state -- a conservative Democrat senator and a moderate Republican senator. It just won't be Lugar and Bayh.
I'll never understand being proud of believing in nothing, though.
|
|