[Analysis, Opinion, Notes and Tunes.]
[Author’s Note: Preliminarily, we should note that the following is relevant to the our published article at this site at https://reasonandbalance.com/battle-for-the-soul-of-the-world/ (Battle for Soul of the World) where we make mention of the opposing philosophies/concepts of competition and cooperation.]
Democracy, any democracy, cannot survive unless elected officials are able to get along well enough to reach compromise on the “pressing critical issues” facing the nation. By pressing critical issues we mean issues that if not addressed and some solution or compromise reached would cause substantial harm to the ability of the country to defend itself and pay its bills. Critical issues are also those that affect the ability of government (including the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to carry out their assigned functions under the U.S. Constitution. Under certain circumstances public health and safety may also raise critical issues. There, of course, can be other critical issues as well if substantial and relatively abnormal danger or potential harm to the public or the nation is present.
We are concerned here primarily with only “pressing” critical issues.* That is, those that could well affect the survivability of a publicly-elected representative form of government—in other words, those that affect the survivability of a democracy. In short, the issue being faced may be a critical issue, but if it is not also a “pressing” one, then normal democratic process, including the normal tactics employed by politicians and parties during debate and consideration of the issues are to be expected and are acceptable.
An issue is pressing if the potential negative consequences are likely to occur within a time frame in which unless action is then taken, negative consequences are highly likely to immediately follow
If the critical issue is pressing then all politicians regardless of party affiliation owe the deepest duty to the country, to attempt to put differences aside and to find some solution. Digging in and refusing to negotiate is not a proper tactic, and on some level shows a level of bad faith that can, at times, border on sedition. Why? Simply put, because “digging in”(and thus, and not compromising) shows a willingness on the part of the politician digging in, to destroy the country in order to get one’s way. One of the big problems currently being faced is a digging in by some politicians merely to make the opposing side or the executive branch look bad. We’ve already addressed the evils of power politics in our last post.
As an example of a pressing critical issue consider the functions that both Congress and the President have to jointly agree upon a federal budget. Failure to reach a compromise on a contentious budget would cause severe harm to both the government’s ability to function and to the general welfare. Financial markets would destabilize, interest rates in general would go up (making future federal debt tougher to pay) and social security recipients and many needy folks may not get the governmental checks that they need to survive. Thus, the potential for the government to default on its debts is a critical issue. And, if Congress and the President get to the last few days before the government has time to do what is necessary to avoid the default then the issue should be considered pressing. Under such circumstances, digging in tactics are not only to be frowned upon but they are also dangerous to the welfare of the entire nation.
Increasingly, we find our politicians digging in on issues. This is largely because politicians increasingly engage in nothing but the rawest form of power politics. They not only play hardball, they play dirty and with absolutely no intention of coolly and rationally debating possible solutions to problems. Everything is to make the other side look bad and to stay in or to acquire power. Solving the issues too often has become beside the point. All of this leads to stagnation, rancor and bad faith-dealing amongst our political leaders.
All of this, of course, if fueled by the constant quest for TV ratings and/or website clicks. Information sources who call themselves news outlets too often fan the flames of rancor and power politics. Their flock develop what amounts to a brain-washed a lynch-mob mentality that is driving an ever-widening wedge between the various factions of the American public.
As children, most folks were told at some point something to the effect that they shouldn’t be selfish and that “the world doesn’t revolve around [them]!”. The adults of the world will tell you that one never gets everything they want. In fact, many get far less than fifty percent. In short, adults know that they have to “get along” and to make concessions here and there in order to survive.
Many, if not most of us, don’t want to get up in the morning, go to work and have someone else tell us what to do. We don’t like to pay taxes. We don’t like to drive under the speed limit. We wish we had 3 hours for lunchbreak. But we make concessions, obey the law, do what our boss tells us, all because that’s what’s necessary in order to get along in and function in our society. Our families depend on us to do this for their survival as well.
Politics is no different. No person, politician, or party can realistically expect to get everything they want. Sometimes concessions must be made in order for the nation to function and survive. Making concessions for some greater good is what adults do. And, it is what elected leaders must do if democracy is to survive.
Elected leaders need to act like leaders and make adult decisions and not just pander to the desires of more narrowly focused voters, who almost always, have lesser knowledge of the broader issues involved in the legislative and governmental processes than their elected leaders do. (This is largely because the public has less access to as much information on relevant topics as political leaders do.) Elected leaders need to both better educate the public as to the broader costs and benefits of their decision-making and explain the reason why their votes are sensible in the bigger scheme of things. If an elected official cannot do this, he should be voted out of office. That is, unless some law respecting confidentiality or other national security consideration is involved, in which case, this fact should be explained by the official in question.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that to the extent the digging in tactic becomes pervasive, for a substantial number of issues, be they pressing or not, government becomes less and less functional. When government becomes dysfunctional history has shown that the public becomes desperate for solutions. And far worse, the public can choose to follow those who seemingly offer simple solutions—but who expect and/or demand that the public give up their right to have any say in government. In short, when the government becomes dysfunctional the public often has a tendency to turn to strong- armed demagogues and would be dictators for solutions.
In fact, a tactic often employed by would be dictators and authoritarian leaning groups is to get their leaders elected to representative and other governmental positions and then propose policies and/or caste votes that are intended to disrupt the effective functioning of government. In this way, the public will become desperate and turn to their representatives’ authoritarian leaders and would-be dictators to take control of government.
If compromise is eventually necessary in order for any democratic form of government to function the question arises: Should a legislator ever resort to tactics that insult, degrade or humiliate a fellow legislator or political leader, especially if that fellow politician must be dealt with at some point in the future? Beyond just the simple question of having manners and treating all people with some degree of respect, it boggles the mind that persons elected to public office (who should set an example for the rest of us) would ever engage in such unseemly low ball tactics. How in the world could anyone ever expect to get the agreement or cooperation of someone who they’ve mistreated in such a fashion? In fact, resorting to tactics designed to smear, embarrass or degrade another politician—or members of his or her family– not only show extremely poor judgment but also seriously calls into question whether the offending politician has any agenda other than to disrupt government and ultimately destroy its ability to operate. This is especially true, when the act in question bears very little, if any, reasonable relation to any kind of critical issue being addressed or confronted.
All voters must expect and demand more from their elected leaders than they have in the immediate past. Voters need to pay less attention to pandering politicians who have little integrity, even less true knowledge of the issues, and who just say what they think the voters want to hear. Voters must take it upon themselves to elect leaders with integrity and a strong desire to address, analyze, rationally debate, compromise (where necessary) and then solve problems.
(Footnotes are at the bottom of this article)
TUNES
With the foregoing in mind, we cannot help but to post this next tune. So enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YDSeqMaV78
None of the content of the post was generated by artificial intelligence.
David Dixon Lentz July 21, 2023
© Copyright 2023; David Dixon Lentz; All Rights Reserved.
.*. All of the foregoing is not to say that longer term problems do not raise critical issues. But the point here is that with respect to those issues that can be addressed at some point in the future they are yet not “pressing” provided that calamitous consequences are not likely in the immediate future.
**The foregoing is not to suggest that there are never circumstances where it is not possible to negotiate. Sometimes negotiation, or more precisely further negotiation is not possible for legitimate reasons. However, this should only occur after good faith attempts at negotiation have failed and/or for some legitimate reason are not possible. What are legitimate reasons for not negotiating or to stop negotiating? Reasonandbalance is, in the end, about balancing costs and benefits and taking those actions where the benefits outweigh the costs. However, in the context of this article, the overall welfare of the nation and all of its citizens plays a crucial role in the consideration of those costs and benefits involved. Too often in the recent past, the welfare of the nation and all of its citizens have not been sufficiently considered. Too often, the interests of just one particular political party, section of the country, group or political interest has been taken into account. Moreover, digging in and refusing to negotiate in good faith, must only be done as a last resort if a person or group’s significant vital interests are concerned and are threatened with immediate adverse consequence if that person’s or groups interests are not respected in a manner consisted with the “dug-in” position that the party in question has taken. In this regard, significant vital interests are those that significantly impinge upon one’s health, safety, financial well-being and/or other legal rights.
,