“No” isn’t an ideology.
“Nada” is no way to govern a country.
“Nope” won’t turn around the economy, and political rope-a-doping won’t balance the federal budget.
Yet if you had to summarize the three top “accomplishments” of the Republican party since Obama took office, they would be no, nada, and nope. Because it is out of power, the Republican Party has decided to abandon any thought of governing, any intention of influencing policy. Rather than moderate Obama’s policies, they decided purely on political grounds to battle Obama’s message of hope with the audacity of nope.
Audacious, indeed.
With governance comes responsibility. When in power, “no” can’t be the answer to every policy question. But Republicans aren’t in power. And so they don’t have to make any policy decisions of their own. They don’t have to seriously contemplate any of the difficult decisions facing any honest government. Instead, they can wait and see what the Democrats propose, and trash it.
Obama’s health care plan? They were against it before they even knew what was in it. The fact that this was very much what Republicans from Nixon on would probably have proposed, in place of a truly socialized health care system, is irrelevant. Because all they cared about was saying no.
The best way to deal with global warming? It’s certainly not cap and trade, they’ll tell you, even though that is a market (!) approach to environmental regulation. It’s certainly not any alternative to cap and trade, either. Just give them the details of Obama’s plan, and they’ll be against it.
Bolstered by the radicals at Fox News, the Republican Party has ceded its role as policy makers and, thus, no longer make themselves available as people who can improve our country. All in an effort to bring down Obama.
Very sad. The country would be a better place if each party was willing to compromise — to rein in the excesses of the other party. The Democrats really have no choice now but to stop wasting energy developing bipartisan solutions to the problems they are trying to tackle. They have no choice but to go alone. And that go-it-alone strategy will inevitably lead to worse policies than if they were working toward compromise.
I yearn for the days when Republicans, even as a minority party, were willing to sit in back rooms and hash out compromises with their Democratic adversaries.
It’s time for Republicans to put the interest of their country ahead of their short-term political agenda.
View original post and comments at Huffington Post
Abortion, Health Care and the Psychology of Compromise
It is a dangerous time to compromise in the U. S. government. A Republican working with Obama is dead meat in the next primary. A Democrat who works with Republicans? Well, you saw what happened to Joe Lieberman the last time he ran as a Democrat.
Politicians are understandably worried that if they collaborate across the aisle, their political careers will soon end. They fear losing their next election.
But their fears are misplaced, at least from my perspective as a researcher who has studied the kinds of ways people mispredict what will make themselves happy or miserable.
People frequently overestimate the emotional impact of adversity. Early-career professors imagine that if they fail to receive tenure they’ll be miserable the rest of their lives, even though long-term studies show that tenured positions have no impact on well-being. Making these same mistakes, elected officials assume that if they lose the next election, they will be miserable. In making these mispredictions, they focus too narrowly on the feelings they will experience as the results of their election loss trickle in – the shame of the failure, the challenge of telling staff that they’ll have to find new jobs, and the misery of giving up all that power and prestige.
But what happens to legislators after they lose elections? Remember, these are often very talented people, with large social networks and often with access to lots of money, through previously accumulated fortunes or through the business connections they have developed in office. These people more than land on their feet again. Most of them thrive. They live extremely full lives, working at the intersection of business and government. Fromrom what I’ve seen, I’d guess that most of them are happier than they were when they were in the government. I mean look at those cool eyeglasses Tom Daschle started wearing after he lost his reelection campaign. And how about Al Gore and his Nobel Prize!
Indeed, I would go a step further in characterizing politicians’ mispredictions. Most imagine, incorrectly, that losing the next election will make them miserable. Instead, I’d guess that doing what it takes to get reelected is really what will make them miserable.
That brings us to Bart Stupak, Democratic Congressman from Michigan — notable for his pro-life views as well as his embrace of social programs to help poor people. When Stupak considered whether to vote for health care reform legislation, he found himself attacked from the left for focusing too much on making sure that such reforms did not expand federal funding for abortions. And he found himself attacked from the right, for supporting Obama’s “socialist” agenda. By looking for middle ground, a compromise, he set himself up for a very difficult election campaign.
But he didn’t care. He thought the legislation was important enough that he was going to do what he thought was right, even if that made everyone angry. And now, he is retiring, rather than face a brutal reelection campaign. And here is my prediction: he will soon be a very happy man. He will be able to look back on the end of his political career convinced that he acted on principle to do what he thought was best for the country, regardless of the political consequences of those same actions.
By caring more about his country than he cared about his political fortunes, Stupak has taken a large step towards living a happy and fulfilled life.
Let that be a lesson to all his colleagues, as they fret over their next reelection campaign.
View original post and comments at Scientocracy