Do Congress and the president have an obligation to find a compromise to end the federal government shutdown? I think it can be argued that they do and that obligation transcends their obligations to their constituents, political parties, ideologies, or other agenda.
Article 4, Section 4 of the U. S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. It has been known for more than two millennia that republican government requires the possibility of compromise. If compromise has become impossible, that is inconsistent with republican government.
The dictionary definition of “compromise” is:
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concession
and the compromise presently available has been obvious and proposed by practically every editorial page in the country.
I don’t believe that the actual substance of the disagreement between President Trump and Speaker Pelosi is what’s at stake. I think that both parties are trying to maintain a zero-sum game in which they win and the other side loses.
Agree on the obligation. So what can be compromised?
Trump can go from a concrete wall to steel slatted Wall, or whatever border agents advise. (But they do advise a wall). He can compromise on the number. He can accept other border security measures in addition to the wall. Reading the tea leaves, it seems he has all but explicitly acknowledged he would do so.
The Democrats? Notions that walls don’t work are ludicrous. Look at prisons or any number of other venues. Notions of morality are ludicrous. The videos of Dems prior stances on this issue force people thinking they have had a moral epiphany to self identify themselves as morons or dishonest forks. Cost? Please.
So Pelosi’s notion of “nyet,†or a dollar, is politically smug, but just political. It takes two to compromise. I think your admonition is misdirected.
The title is an allusion to Benjamin Franklin, on the last day of the constitutional convention?
I am suggesting that BOTH President Trump and Speaker Pelosi compromise.
CuriousOnlooker:
Yes, that is the reference.
Of course you are, Dave. I wouldn’t expect anything else. But obvious comments or truisms aren’t analysis. Trump has opened the door. The Dems are still just obstructionist and engaging in serial absurd talking points and falsehoods. “You said Mexico would pay, so no Wall. Na na-na-na na.â€
Analysis should highlight that.
The dynamics of the electorate make it very hard for either side to budge. I agree with others it will take an emergency of some sort to shake this out.
https://www.axios.com/border-wall-trump-government-shutdown-poll–c0cb0431-4590-438a-bf20-9c88d55f5847.html
What the linked polling data, along with many other polls over the period of the last 25 years, tell us is that the two political parties are defining themselves by their contrast with the other party. I do not think that is a formula for republican government.
In a post from ten years ago I complained about the transition I saw to not merely different parties but opposition parties. I don’t think that we need one opposition party let alone two.
Yes, but this is a reflection of ourselves, moderate voices do not draw eyeballs and ad dollars. Moderate politicians do not motivate donors or voters. I can only hope such polarization is a phase, and not a symptom endemic to our politics. I, for one, am tired of it.
Border security. Yesterday in Az. 350 illegals slipped underneath the wall through a 2 ft deep tunnel and immediately surrendered to authorities to begin the asylum process. It was reported one man had displayed an airline ticket to San Diego at the time.
Wall or no, under current law, they will keep confidently coming north, and no one is putting forward a policy to change that.
That is essentially what I have been saying. It’s not quite true that no one is proposing policies to change it. Just nobody important. For example, I’ve been proposing tightening up eVerify, using biometric id, and stiffening violations by employers for well over a decade. IMO if fraud becomes much harder and the penalties for hiring those without work visas tough enough, enough people will stop coming that the rest of the system will start working again.
Right now what I think is needed is substantially more judges to hear the asylum cases, stationing those judges right at the board, and adjudicating cases immediately.
Partisan righteousness dictates the only way to save the Republic is to destroy it.
” Look at prisons or any number of other venues. ”
OK, I concede that a wall that is about one mile long surrounding a couple of acres works pretty well when coupled with lots of guards. What would that have to do with a wall in the middle of the desert far away from any housing? It would be climbed in a few seconds. It won’t stop anything. It is the guards you would have patrolling who would catch people coming in. If it is the guards that actually work, spend more money on them. Put up drones with infrared. Motion detectors. Pits with bamboo spikes! (Just wanted to appeal to your conservative side.)
I will also concede that walls in cities make sense. It makes people visible and slows them just a bit. Enough to help in a high density area which will also mean lots of police and lots of witnesses. Much different than building a wall everywhere.
If you want security and fewer people crossing, Dave’s suggestions make more sense. Also decriminalize marijuana. Narcotics, meth, crystal come through legal ports of entry. Marijuana is more likely to cross elsewhere. Give out more legal work visas. If employers need to pay foreigners the same as everyone else since they are now legal, they are more likely to hire Americans.
The only thing the wall really solves, is Trump’s need to satisfy his base, and Drew. If you want to address border security, then do that. But, as I said, if the only way to get better security is to concede on the wall, I guess I can go for that, but would try to minimize the money spent. Would suggest barbed wire rather than a wall. Cheaper. Will (not) work just as well.
Steve
“penumbras, formed by emanations”
You guys are debating how to preserve a system that’s already dead.
I think the only way we can expect to get more from our elected officials is if we demand more from them. What would you suggest?
Republican government is failing in all the places it was born, simultaneously. In all the places where liberal (meaning capitalist) democracy was born. This is an historical force, not an issue of national governance that can be fixed by chiding a politician. They can’t manage it any more than we can because they’re caught up in the same phenomenon. The centralizers of government and the corporate state are not in control.
Causaulity can run in two directions here:
1) The system isn’t working because politicians aren’t getting along.
2) Politicians aren’t getting along because the system isn’t working.
I don’t believe in “historical forces”. I believe in human action. People doing things for reasons. Most people in the world don’t believe in republican government or liberal democracy and they take their beliefs with them wherever they go.