Compromise And What It Means In Today’s Political World
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
With the drama of mashing up against the authorized national debt ceiling in Washington, D.C. (unless Congress is able to come up with a workable solution to gain the necessary votes for an action that President Obama will accept) and the inability of legislators and the Governor to reach a mutually acceptable solution in Minnesota for a state budget…a number of folks are wondering what ever happened to government officials who are willing or able to compromise.
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere other than “compromise”. After all we are fast approaching a point where government is going to swallow up every nickel we have and they still don’t seem to have enough to satisfy their desire for more.
The Wiki perspective on compromise gives a pretty good idea on the more favorable and the less favorable meanings for the world.
In the context of the political battles being waged, over gaining more taxes to support government’s spending , we see -- from the manner in which positioning takes place -- that the intentions are not necessarily about coming up with a mutually-beneficial solution. The game plan of such posturing isn’t about finding the middle – it’s about making sure the middle you arrive at is on your end of the desired outcomes.
In his book, The Art of Political War, David Horowitz correctly identifies the way these issues are dealt with, emphasizing that it all about politics...
The principles of the situation, again taken from Horowitz’s insightful perspective (noting that the left understands these ideas very well):
Because most of us are nice people, we don’t like the noise or the controversy. Those who attack the representatives standing up for our protection understand this and play it to their advantage.
We need to recognize the circumstances for what they are and the consequences of not doing something about the Leviathan -- out to get everything you’ve got, masking their intent as a ploy to convince you it is really the other guy who is the target.
With the drama of mashing up against the authorized national debt ceiling in Washington, D.C. (unless Congress is able to come up with a workable solution to gain the necessary votes for an action that President Obama will accept) and the inability of legislators and the Governor to reach a mutually acceptable solution in Minnesota for a state budget…a number of folks are wondering what ever happened to government officials who are willing or able to compromise.
Perhaps the answer lies somewhere other than “compromise”. After all we are fast approaching a point where government is going to swallow up every nickel we have and they still don’t seem to have enough to satisfy their desire for more.
The Wiki perspective on compromise gives a pretty good idea on the more favorable and the less favorable meanings for the world.
In the context of the political battles being waged, over gaining more taxes to support government’s spending , we see -- from the manner in which positioning takes place -- that the intentions are not necessarily about coming up with a mutually-beneficial solution. The game plan of such posturing isn’t about finding the middle – it’s about making sure the middle you arrive at is on your end of the desired outcomes.
In his book, The Art of Political War, David Horowitz correctly identifies the way these issues are dealt with, emphasizing that it all about politics...
“Republicans often seem to regard political combats as they would a debate before the Oxford Political Union, as though winning depended on rational arguments and carefully articulated principles. But the audience of politics is not made up of Oxford dons, and the rules are entirely different.”We see the importance of positioning clearly in this account, coming from a Minnesota representative, involved in that state’s situation of being in a shut-down. The impasse is about the Governor not being able to increase state spending to level he wants, due to inability to get acceptance of a package of tax increases. Not a perspective you’re going to read about in most of the main stream "news" accounts…
"If you do not focus on winning the political battle, you do not get to target the problems."
The principles of the situation, again taken from Horowitz’s insightful perspective (noting that the left understands these ideas very well):
- Politics is war conducted by other means
- Politics is a war or position
- In political warfare, the aggressor usually prevails
- Position is defined by fear and hope
- The weapons of politics are symbols evoking fear and hope
- Victory lies on the side of the people
Because most of us are nice people, we don’t like the noise or the controversy. Those who attack the representatives standing up for our protection understand this and play it to their advantage.
We need to recognize the circumstances for what they are and the consequences of not doing something about the Leviathan -- out to get everything you’ve got, masking their intent as a ploy to convince you it is really the other guy who is the target.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/7/2011 8:21 AM 
Categories: Government
Tags: Politics Government Expansion Tax and Spend Government Policies
Categories: Government
Tags: Politics Government Expansion Tax and Spend Government Policies
Comments