Start A Petition

Needed in Washington: A New Model of Compromise

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: abuse, americans, congress, corruption, dishonesty, ethics, government, propaganda, lies, republicans, politics, usa, freedoms )

- 1956 days ago -
The next Washington impasse already is taking shape; what is needed now is an entirely new paradigm for resolving it.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


JL A (281)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 4:23 pm
Needed in Washington: A New Model of Compromise

By Gerald Seib

The next Washington impasse already is taking shape; what is needed now is an entirely new paradigm for resolving it.
One glimmer of hope is that a bipartisan group of lawmakers and activists are going to start next week trying to create one.

The impasse will come when the nation's leaders need to do their next round of deficit cutting sometime in the next two months, before the federal government again hits its legal debt ceiling and needs a new round of funding from Congress to keep running. Republicans insist the new budget deal must include only spending cuts, no tax increases; Democrats insist it must include some increased tax revenue from eliminating deductions and exemptions.

Lurking in the background is a deeper reality, which is that there is nothing even approaching a consensus on how to deal with the elephant in the room: the need to start reducing the growth in costs of the big Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security entitlement programs. On this core subject, the divide between the two parties is even more stark than it was over tax rates before the New Year's Day resolution of that thorny subject.

Once upon a time, it was possible to argue that the way to get beyond this impasse would be for a core group of lawmakers from the center of the spectrum to band together, create a critical mass, and produce a solution that would attract others. But at this point, there is too little of a political center remaining in a polarized Washington to make that much of an option.

Thus, the need for a new paradigm. The current model—based on an assumption that the White House and congressional leaders can come to some accommodation—clearly isn't working very well as evidenced by two years of failed stabs at a big deficit deal. Nor are the models of the 1980s or 1990s likely to be replicated today.

In the 1980s, the Reagan economic program came together because there was a coalition in the center, consisting of conservative Democratic foot soldiers and moderate Republican leaders, who coalesced first around the Reagan budget and tax cuts, and then around modifications to that program in subsequent years.

In the 1990s, the two most important figures on the political scene were Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, who rose in power and prominence because they staked out and drew people to the political center. For President Clinton, that meant dragging his Democratic Party away from its leftist moorings and toward the center. For Mr. Perot, it meant convincing disenchanted partisans from both sides that, by joining forces with him, they could force the whole political system to the center, even if that meant detaching themselves from their old party loyalties and joining his independent and third-party presidential bids.

Today, most of the elements that produced those moves toward common ground in the '80s and '90s are missing. There are few conservative Democrats or moderate Republican leaders of the old mold; neither the president nor his GOP leadership counterparts are seen by the other side as pulling people toward the center; there is no Ross Perot to lead a centrist insurrection, much less a third party.

Instead, there is a left and a right, and not much of a magnet to pull them together.

What's lacking is an attitude among the capital's politicians that, while acknowledging they have different views, they must agree that they need to solve problems despite differences. In the absence of a new center, there is a need for a new attitude.

And right now, this attitude is more likely to emerge from the two parties' rank and file than from the leadership, which has broken its swords in failure over the past two years. The best model may be the big tax reform of 1986, which came about because a couple of second-tier legislators in the Senate and House—Bill Bradley and Richard Gephardt—joined forces to start a big train moving.

One place where this kind of movement may be starting is a group called No Labels, an organization of Republicans, Democrats and independent political activists. It says it is dedicated to finding "a new politics of problem solving." Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia—each a former problem-solving governor with something of a maverick reputation—have just been named its leaders.

They are convening a meeting in New York on Jan. 14 that they say will attract lawmakers from both parties "committed to meeting regularly to build trust across the aisle." The group also is busy trying to generate popular support for its efforts.

Two giant tasks lie ahead for Washington: fixing the tax system and changing entitlement programs. Neither will happen without such "trust across the aisle." We'll see soon enough.

Roger G (154)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 4:27 pm
noted, thanks !

JL A (281)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 5:01 pm
You are welcome Roger!

Kit B (276)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 5:37 pm

Good for Huntsman and Manchin this is exactly what is needed a center balance. Though "changing entitlements" is rough language to begin a peace treaty. Yes, we all know that some things do need to change, but when the primary objective that which is not wanted but needed for survival by so many, some thing else must also be on table or expect any negotiation to hit a wall of failure.

JL A (281)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 5:54 pm
Good points Kit. With Hagel agreeing the Pentagon doesn't need unlimited funds, perhaps that portion of the budget will finally be addressed sufficiently instead of it's equitable portion it may not even need being left alone while ordinary people receive benefit hits that will kill them. You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.

Past Member (0)
Wednesday January 9, 2013, 11:42 pm
Bipartisanship with extremist right-wing evil is nothing more than evil. However, given that both dominant parties subscribe to the same corporate agenda of bailouts for the wealthy, austerity packages for middle class and working poor Americans, endless war, and endless inaction on climate change; what's needed is not blind collaboration with the corporate agenda, but a complete overhaul of the political process to allow representational government complete with parties that actually represent the people and not just corporate profits.

David C (29)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 12:15 am
Any Model of Compromise would be good to see!

JL A (281)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 8:35 am
Excellent analysis Brian! I agree David. Green stars headed to you both!

. (0)
Thursday January 10, 2013, 9:46 am
The best and brightest hope for change is to be found among the Independents and the lower tiers of the existing parties. Unless you change the system you will always have the same problem. Take finance and campaign reform. We know what the solutions are but are blocked at every turn from the upper government echelons. It's the same wherever you go. Taxpayer stimulus through bailouts is the biggest pile of horse cookies and I said that from day one of the first one. Meanwhile; are you any better off now than you were five years ago? You have ceded a little more of your individual rights and freedoms; the job market is still lousy and Obama wants another taxpayer bailout. The FED is still in charge of issuing American currency and charging you the taxpayer 17% on every dollar issued. Big Schmile!!!!

JL A (281)
Friday January 11, 2013, 12:11 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Michael because you have done so within the last week.

Past Member (0)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 4:55 am
I totally disagree, on the edges of both parties are purist (or ideologues if you don't like them) and the center full of moderates. There is just no attempt to pull the centers from both parties together. Personally, I think elected officials should not be allowed home on weekends when congress is in session so that these people get to know each other (some expenses are worth it, and this is one of them).

JL A (281)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 7:10 am
John--I disagree that there is a center full of moderates any longer--that was once true, but you can find several recent articles posted that confirm that it is no longer true and the absence is the reason for much of the dysfunction.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.