E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSo what’s the difference between finding “common ground” and “compromise?” On 60 Minutes, incoming Speaker John Boehner refused to use the word, saying it “is a dirty word,” especially among Tea Partiers. Here was the exchange:
Stahl: You’re saying, “I want common ground, but I’m not gonna compromise.” I don’t understand that. I really don’t.
Boehner: When you say the word “compromise”…a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh-oh, they’re gonna sell me out.” And so finding common ground, I think, makes more sense. Stahl reminded him that his goal had been to get all the Bush tax cuts made permanent.
Stahl: So you did compromise.
Boehner: I’ve, we found common ground.
Stahl: Why won’t you say you’re afraid of the word.
Boehner: I reject the word.
One reason is because half of his new members are Tea Partiers who think compromise is a dirty word – even when it comes to raising the national debt limit, which Boehner has said the new Congress will have to deal with as adults to keep the federal government from defaulting.
“Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele intends to announce his reelection plans on Monday evening, and key supporters expect him to drop out of the hotly contested race, top Republicans tell POLITICO.”
Former Bush administration official Maria Cino is officially in the RNC chair race.
Leave a Comment:
Yes "common ground" may sound better than "compromise" but the end results are very similar in accomplishments.
Similar discussion items are the current meanings of "trickle down/thru" and the "multiplier effect" of $$$ going into the economy. Different words but with the same stated effect. Stimulas!
I guess those wanting to use "political correct" terminology will do whatever to sell their brand of ideology.
Actually, there are material differences. (See my defs below)
I watched this 60 Minutes last night. Boehner is lying through his teeth about working with Democrats, he sure as heck has not done it for the past two years. He looked ridiculous crying on the show. I got the impression of a drunk on a crying jag.
SS, Boehner was NOT lying, he was telling straight up truth. He's NOT going to "compromise" (see my defs below), he's ONLY going to work on those things where "Common Ground" is available. You may be reading into that, but that isn't HIS PROBLEM, that's your problem isn’t it?!?!?!?
Since apparently there are few shared values remaining, I suspect there will be little or no work accomplished. Keep in mind also that BHO made the same claim BEFORE.... the election, namely that he was going to abate partisanship and work together (the Hope and Change “bait”) but afterwards.... not so much..... the GOP wasn't even invited into the WH. In both houses, the Dems shut down debate, denied amendments, failed to even let the text of the bills be read (we had to wait for it to be passed before we were allowed to KNOW what was contained therein), and every other form or control mechanism.
Boehner said he would work with them where "Common Ground" was available, like the Tax Rate extension BHO has agreed to sign, and the Senate has passed. In fact, the two are ALREADY working together in spite of your claims made AFTER the fact.... in short the cooperative efforts have ALREADY taken place. You may be blinded by emotion, or visions of partisan hegemony that is failing to materialize, it's difficult to say. However the facts are supported by time and date stamps, and logic.
When the Dems had all three components required to unilaterally impose doctrine and policy, they worked without GOP input, and STILL blamed them for not being able to succeed. NOW... they DON'T have full control, and are setting up new blame games upon which to promote the myths supporting their failures. It would appear that REGARDLESS of the conditions, it will always be the GOP at fault for some people.
Also, thanks for your caring acceptance of Speaker Boehner's humanity as expressed by his open display of emotion which I'm sure in every other venue henceforth, will be the usual charge... "heartless, unsympathetic, uncaring, empathy-less Republicans want to watch Grandma being thrown into the snow-bank in order to laugh at her misery before she dies..".
... I’m sure being a member of the Peace, Love, Tolerance, and Understanding party should be invaluable to the Dems in this regard.
Why are the Tea Partiers opposed to "Compromise"?
The hallmark of writing the constitution (which they 'carry in their pocket') was compromise (large states/small states, federal vs. state power, slavery, ....)
Why didn't the Tea Partiers have a big protest when the Bush Tax Cuts were extended, thus increasing the national debt?
IMO, the Tea Party originally tapped into some legitimate concerns in the US (ex: debt), but then it was taken over by groups like FreedomWorks and promoted by Fox, morphing into a way to manipulate people into voting for the Republican party.
Read my comment below for defs.
Compromise is the abdication of ones principals usually in exchange for doing something less than ones principals would demand. The "Tea Party" is primarily motivated by it's principals in spite of that which others may believe regarding that which is correct.
A blinded mind, motivated by partisan hegemony, will never grant principled disagreement to the “OTHER” partisans. i.e. “They’re obviously evil, racist, perverse”, etc, etc, etc… but NEVER principled. That can’t be granted or else their reasoning would need to be examined and a chance for agreement, could realized.
So, I would say that the “Tea Party” is opposed to compromise due to their belief that it’s violative of their principals usually to the detriment of a better chance at realizing a measure of success.
Also, I would disagree with your assertion that the “hallmark” of the constitution was compromise. I think to the contrary, the hallmark of the US Constitution was it’s principled view of individual rights, it’s constraints foisted upon the Federal Government (the five golden words), it’s separation of powers instituting the ideals of Federalism, and the Ideals themselves upon which are based; Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
ALL OF WHICH… are principled positions even though, in order to obtain ratification, compromise was used. I just don’t think that compromise is the core, I would counter that principal is far more at the core of it’s intentions and effects.
With regard to the “Bush Tax Cuts” (the rate cuts of the 90s ), I would say it’s a matter of the actual math. Rate cuts produce more activity due to the fact that less is being forcibly taken from those who produce and consequently those who produce engage more often. The increase in activity ultimately produces increases in revenue yields. There is no reason to protest an activity that will ultimately decrease debt, one of the two main points of reducing the size and scope of GVT activity, the second being the authorized scope of the US Constitution.
As far as the “Tea Party” being co-opted is concerned, I would hasten to point out that the “Tea Party” is not a centralized construct, it's not "lead" by anyone. It’s comprised of individuals self activated by the realization of massive largess, incompetence, and expansion of federal powers in direct contravention of the US Constitution as you may have seen with today’s Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius decision. To say that millions of self-activated, self-motivated individuals are being systematically manipulated NOW... but never before, is a shallow assessment designed to assuage the fear you're felling at loosing the control over that which was previously keeping the plantation in check.
He is only cheerful when he gets to cut social security and medicare for our seniors! otherwise he'll cry like hell if he doesn't get his tax cut!
Maybe you're only seeing the things you'd like to see?
Compromise= I believe in X, you believe in Y. I will give up my belief in X, if you will give up your belief in Y, and we will BOTH settle upon something less than that which we both claim to believe.
Common Ground= I believe in X, and you believe in X, and therefore we will BOTH agree to advance X together.
Compromise = Compromise
Common Ground = Common Ground
Common Ground != Compromise
Do the math….