The Irresponsible Straw Man and the Insurmountable Compromise.

The Irresponsible Straw Man and the Insurmountable Compromise.  One of the things I have learned from my 30-plus years as a federal employee is that in government, nothing ever really goes away.  As Congress turns over, as Committee leadership and membership rotates from member to member and party to party, old ideas are resurrected.  Programs that once existed are once again introduced; new acronyms and terms dress them up like a premier gown, but the basic principles remain intact.  Every single Senator or Representative that travels to WDC from the great American landscape comes with the notion that they, and they alone, have the solution to all of the current ills in our nation and no one that came before them accomplished anything of substance.  Because of this flaw in our form of government (yes…our government is not perfect!), we are oftentimes condemned to repeat the same legislative and policy mistakes over and over, never learning from our past misadventures.  And unfortunately, in spite of far-too-long tenures of many career politicians, by the time our Congressional Members realize their errors in judgment, their terms expire and the new cast of saviors rolls in, ready to reinvent the wheel and save us from ourselves…once again.

The only solution to this problem that I can imagine is the implementation of term limits; not likely, but more possible perhaps than ever before.  In lieu of term limits, we must rely on the good old process of debate and compromise by the national parties. 

…I pause here for a moment to allow you to roll on the floor in uncontrollable laughter…

Acknowledging that our nation is divided down the middle; knowing that the liberals detest the conservatives just as much as the conservatives detest the liberals; why has our Government persisted in and exacerbated the current dysfunction?  There are many, many reasons for this condition and if there were a simple and central cause, it would be far easier to identify and remedy.  However, due to the complex and arbitrary nature of American politics, the enigma of our Congress persists.  Two of the drivers for this calamity are the failure to negotiate in good faith and the erosion of civility in the debate process.  These are the two items I want to highlight in this blog. 

Although the straw man argument is ageless, no politician in memory has exercised it quite like our current president.  When framing the subject of a debate or negotiation, there are always at least two different perspectives; which is the proper position to assume is entirely a matter of perspective and personal inclination.   But in order to have a meaningful and honest debate, each side must be given the opportunity to espouse its position in its own terms.  Whether or not you agree with a position, the person or entity proposing that position must be granted the chance to persuade you that they are right.  WDC political discourse has thrown this principle overboard in the last decade or two and we now have the age of the straw man (No…this is not the most recent Marvel superhero).  Using this technique, one side will depict their opponent’s position in the most extreme terms, oftentimes beyond any reasonable stretch of reason and resulting in a caricature of the stand they argue against.  They unethically distort the position of those they debate and on occasion, actually use the straw man technique to silence those who do not accept their philosophy hook, line, and sinker.  This is basically a “my way or the highway” philosophy.  Given the divided and partisan nature of our electorate, this strategy finds a friendly and accepting audience on either side of the aisle and has grown both in application and effectiveness.  It is a dishonest and irresponsible way to debate public policy and flies in the face of every democratic (small d) tenet.   If we are going to get back to any semblance of a functioning Legislative and Executive Branch in our government, we must get back to a point where each party has ample opportunity to set forth their positions and those statements are accurately recorded, respected, and repeated.  Each side must stop trying to define their opponent’s position for them in an attempt to distort the discussion and silence those who do not agree with their arguments.  Speak your piece; then shut up and allow the other side to speak.  Do not presume to tell people what to think; tell them what to think about.  It is rare indeed that we do not find merit in both sides of an argument; a fair and honest recognition of that merit, regardless of its quantity, is the key to civility.

And now, let us talk about compromise.  Merriam-Webster defines compromise thusly: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.  Compromise is one of those terms that each of us has to live with on a daily base; life is full of compromise.  Each of us might define compromise in a somewhat different fashion; but we all know what it is in reality and we recognize it when confronted by it.  In WDC, much like the straw man phenomenon, the art of compromise has been distorted beyond practical application.  What we now see as compromise goes pretty much along these lines:  if you want to sit down and discuss with me how we can apply my ideas, then that would be a good compromise. It is no longer a compromise to start from two different points on the continuum and settle on a point somewhere in between.  Now, if either side refuses to throw its own principles aside and simply discuss how the principles of its opponent might be implemented, they are framed as being uncompromising and obstinate.  This is madness.  Compromise is defined by the term “mutual concessions” and that term requires that each opposing side give a little bit towards the other’s position.  Yes, there will be rare occasions when the subject of the debate is sufficiently well-defined and pronounced that an immoveable stand on principle is necessary; but the reality is that those times should be few and far between.  The overwhelming needs for compromise on Capitol Hill fall in the arena of practice, not principle.   Given the partisan nature of our people and the oftentimes unbridgeable gulf that lies between them; it is more imperative than ever that a piece of legislation contain some input from both political parties.   Now I will readily acknowledge that old adage about leading the horse to water remains true.  If your debate opponent simply refuses to participate in good faith and remains inexcusably obstinate; at some point, the process must be concluded and it is accepted that the obstructionist party has foregone their opportunity for meaningful participation.  However, every…single…effort…possible should be expended in a quest to gain some semblance of bipartisan support for legislative initiatives.  It is essential for laws and programs to have credibility if they are going to be accepted and supported by the American people.  It all comes back to each political party accepting the fact that they are not infallible; their judgment is not bullet-proof; they have not cornered the market on wisdom and knowledge; and most important of all…they do represent the views and opinions of every single American citizen.  Compromise is not abject surrender; compromise is “meetin’ in the middle”.  Case in point: Obamacare (ACA) was doomed to failure because of its illegitimate and extraordinary legislative creation.  If, as expected, the current Republican Congress and incoming Republican President repeal Obamacare, then its successor must be a product, at some meaningful level, of bipartisan debate and compromise.  If not, it will likely experience the same fate as Obamacare.

The very essence of our American government is liberty for its citizens and honest representation of those citizens by their elected officials.  This nation is currently built on two-party rule and both those parties must be heard.  If you expect to be heard, you must be civil.  If you expect to remain the party in power, you must allow your opponent to be heard.  The straw men must be burned and the insurmountable compromises must be overcome.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  Middle of the road, baby…ain’t nobody perfect.