Is "coalition politics" like the Senate Deal a problem or a solution?

[Armstead]

The deal by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans is a break from the dominant mold of politics in recent years.

Whatever one thinks of it, it was a decision made by the participants based on their beliefs on a specific issue, rather than what they were "supposed" to do based on their party affiliation. It came out as a compromise that other members of each party disagreed with.

Would more of that kind of "issue coalition" be better than less of that?

I must admit to mixed feelings. On one hand, I get so sick of party-line votes in which Congresspeople act either based on instructions from "on high" or out of spite for the opposing party. Among other things that becomes a formula for gridlock in which nothing gets done.

But on the other hand, I don't like the kind of DLC "centrism" in which the Democratic Party has become so mushy and semi-conservative and abandoned so many liberal principles. Politics should be basically a clear contest between liberalism and conservatism that offers voters an actual choice.

In this specific case, it is very discouraging to see three unacceptable judges get clear sailing. These are the type of radical conservative/corporate bedfellow judges the Democrats should be able to block or at least put up a good fight.

But, at the same time, under the present conditions that's probably what would have ultimately would have happened anyway, regardless of this compromise. The bright spot is that the moderates cut the legs out from under the far right Republican powerbullies, which was in a way more embarassing to them than if some Democrats had put up a more partisan futile fight.

I'm wondering what you think. Do you think more "coalition" politics between Republicans and Democrats on issues would be a good thing or not?

[kentuck]

1. It's the solution when you are the minority...

:)

[Armstead]

2. A short and sweet answer

:)

[Pacifist Patriot]

3. I think it depends on the issue.

And that can get quite complex. We all have our own sticking points. I would not want compromises over some issues that others wouldn't mind bending on.

Ultimately though, I think it comes down to constitutionality. If the compromise is within the framework of the U.S. Constitution than "bi-partisan" politics can serve a purpose.

[Armstead]

4. True.

For example, I think the Democrats ought to be firmer on "free trade" issues and these scams like NAFTA and CAFTA.

They should stand firm on not giving away the store in trade policies. The choices seem to be either stand on principle and lose by getting crappy agreements rammed through, or making them at least address concerns like jobs and the environment. Maybe there are enough Republicans with common sense to work with Democrats on that, instead of such a stark choice.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Compromise is the basis for American politics.

You get nothing done in our political system without compromise. It is everything. The result of having a two-party system is having to play ball with the opposition party on many if not most occasions. This sort of compromising has been the lifeblood of our political system since the Constitutional Convention. You can dislike it, but you have to deal with it.

[whistle]

6. It may be all that we have right now, but it could result in stronger...

....alternative parties to both the democrats and republicans. Now, if big money could be removed from politics, we'd have something positive happening.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Coalition politics would be fine if there were more than two parties. We

need major election reform before we can move into a real coalition gov't.

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[Armstead]

10. Well this could help that, actually

Coalition politics would require more bargaining, and also give individual representatives more power. So independents or people on the fringes of either party could have more input because coalitions would have to include their perspectives if they want their support.

[Squeech]

8. Dangerous

No Child Left Behind was originally put together by a coalition-- Ted Kennedy crossed the aisle to work with the Repukes to craft the Senate version of the bill.

Many Dems were pleased to work on the Medicare prescription drug bill on the grounds that it would be a good thing to include such an entitlement into law, no matter how crappily the law was written.

So in both these cases, and many many more, the House and the Senate passed different versions of the bill, which then had to be reconciled in a conference committee. And that's where Congressional Repukes do the real damage nowadays-- they exclude Democrats from the committee (except for dependable corporate tools like Lieberman) and open the floodgates to lobbyists.

On the balance I'd almost rather see the Senate shut down. (But I expect that, when Bush actually gets to nominate a Supreme Court justice, that's exactly what will happen, so we'll all find out.)

[Hugin]

9. Problem...

It takes two to compromise...

Didn't anyone learn anything from Neville Chamberlain?

[Armstead]

11. Depends on who you're compromising with

(I posted this on anotehr thread about this. I'm recycling it here.)

I would agree with you completely if this were an agreement with Bush and/or the Bully Right of the Republican Party. But my sense is that the Republicans who participated are also sick of the tactics of the Radical Right of the Republican Party and were sending them a message.

In some ways, we're dealing with two Republican Parties. One is this new beast that is totally unscrupulous and power-mad. And the other is what's left from the old-fashioned moderate conservative Republicans. Whether the moderates can stand up to the radical bullies is the question.

[Cleita]

12. Actually, coalition politics like parliamentary systems

can cause more gridlock that our system ever did. Some people, though, think this is preferable to 'either/or' decisions that we are more used to.

Time to hit the modern history books and find out who is right or wrong.

[orwell]

13. It's Always

the solution.

Consensus building is at the core of the anarchist, pro-liberty, pro-justice, anti-authoritarian model of social organization.

It should be encouraged.

Anything we can do to destroy the polarized dialectic would be in all our best interests. The only ones to benefit from the current state of political organization are the powerful authoritarian elites that rule both major parties.

I think the party system should have never been instigated in the first place. It is nothing more than autocratic gang warfare with the American citizenry as the drive by victims.

[Armstead]

14. As I recall, the Founders didn't want parties

I think some of them, including George Washington, tried to avoid it happening.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, but...

[Armstead]

15. Kick

Just in case any nitetimers have any comments

[sweetheart]

16. Not being at war with outselves feels good

I wish so much for a government that would not be at war with me.
I don't mind that my politics might become comprimised in coming
to a consensus, as that IS politics... rather, the partisan extremism
is exhausting and really not productive... so in that sense, i feel
good about this arrangement.

It is an omen, perhaps, that the day of the extremist terrorists of
the right has reached its apogee, and more sensible people can get
on with business between neighbors and persons who have generally
common interests in a "united" states.