If the last two elections, 2010 and 2012, have shown anything, it is that the citizens of this republic are divided more than ever about basic political ends. We now have, yet again, a divided government: the Presidency and Senate in the hands of one party, and the House of Representatives in the hands of the other. This situation means one of two things: either there will be no significant legislation passed for at least the next two years, or whatever legislation is passed will represent a compromise in the goals of the two major parties in question. Obviously the political reality is that we will have some of both scenarios: proposals for which no compromise can be found will be blocked from passage, and only those that are amenable to compromise will pass.
OK, you may say; so what is different? Divided government is often the norm in the United States, and legislation was enacted anyway. What is different? The difference is the degree of polarization, and that will require a different form of compromise. In the past, compromise was often along lines such as these: the President and his party proposes X, which the other party opposes, and is in a position to block. A compromise would often be worked out along the lines of this: Proposal X is enacted, but is less sweeping than the President desires, or doesn't cover as many situations, for example. In other words, the classic "half a loaf." This has been the most common form of compromise in the past, because both political parties were "big tent" coalitions; the Republican party would consist of libertarian, Goldwater type conservatives, social conservatives, neo-cons, and big business moderates. The Democrat party was equally divided, including southern conservative populists, trade union advocates, civil rights organizations, mid-west progressive populists, and cold war liberals. With such diverse memberships, half a loaf type compromise was a necessary tactic.
Today the party memberships are far more polarized. Commentators decry the lack of Republican moderates, of the Rockefeller type Republicans, but the blue-dog Democrats are an equally endangered breed, and the cold-war liberal--one who believes in progressive domestic policy and an almost neo-con foreign policy--are almost equally endangered. More so than at any time in the 20th Century, the American political parties represent deep ideological differences as much as they do parochial interest groups. Tweaking legislative proposals on fine details will not satisfy the powerful fire-breathers of either party. The nature of political bargaining will have to change.
I think it will have to work along lines such as this: You want a policy which is opposed by my party, so if I am to go along with it, you will have to give me something that my party wants and yours opposes. How would that work in practice? Let's look at one of the most famous--and most successful--of such compromises: the debt legislation of Gaius Julius Caesar, enacted just before his death. Rome was hobbled by a serious problem of debt in the middle classes, and there was considerable agitation for what was called a general abolition of debt in which the state would require the forgiveness of any debt. Naturally, this alarmed those who had lent money out, since such legislation would, in turn, impoverish them. Now, it has to be noted that this was not a proposal directed to the benefit of the lower classes of Roman society; they may have been poor, but they were rarely, if ever, in debt, since no one would loan anything to them in the first place; it was a middle-class issue. Caesar saw that such a general abolition of debt would not work, since no one would ever loan money again even for worthwhile reasons, yet the current debt load was crushing. Some solution had to be found.
Here is what he did: He affirmed the validity of the principal of all debts; the money would have to be repaid. However, compound interest was forbidden--as it technically always had been--and would be replaced in all cases by simple interest. All interest paid to that point counted against the principal. This meant, for example, that if you borrowed $10,000 at 10%, instead of an annual APR, you would only owe, in total, $11,000. If by the time the legislation was enacted you had paid $4000, your balance would be now only $6000, plus the original 10%. This compromise satisfied no one completely, and offended no one completely. The burden was lowered, but the validity of the debt itself was upheld. No one got everything they wanted, but the economic structure was kept intact.
A modern example might look like this: the President wants the tax rates for the "middle class" lowered permanently, and the tax rates for the upper classes raised, permanently. Republicans want both lowered permanently. A compromise might work along these lines: both would be lowered for another 10 years, but still linked. The President has to swallow the lowered rates for the wealthy, and the Republicans have to swallow the fact that the issue will have to be fought again, with no guarantee that they will be in a position to force the issue again. It will work out like this: for a compromise the work, you will have to offend the fire-breathers in your base. Any good legislation will mean that the radicals on both sides scream "rape!"
No comments:
Post a Comment