Major Garrett, writing in the National Journal: “Americans Want Their Leaders To Stand And Fight”:
Nearly half of America — including nearly two-thirds of Republicans and 53 percent of independents — admires political leaders who refuse to compromise. This is further evidence that the current political atmosphere is not merely contentious, but hostile to any hope of negotiated settlements to the many political and policy differences that define the current landscape.
[…]
The [Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center] found 49 percent of all respondents “admire political leaders who stick to their positions without compromising.” The survey also found that just 42 percent “admire political leaders who make compromises with people they disagree with.”
The poll, which surveyed 1,005 adults across the country by landline or cell phone, was conducted last Thursday through Sunday and has a 4-point error margin for the overall sample, with a higher error margin for subgroups. On the compromise question, whites matched the 49-42 percent split, while blacks, by 53-35 percent, favored politicians who did not compromise. Sixty-two percent of Republicans said they favored non-compromising politicians compared to 54 percent of Democrats who backed compromisers. Independents sided with non-compromisers, 53-40 percent.
What I find most interesting about the findings is how many people — who, let’s face it, have been brow-beaten into forcibly accepting the wisdom of the “compromise” paradigm — are willing to buck conventional thinking and opt to support idealism as a matter of stated principle. Or put another way, idealism as a pragmatic ideal.
Wow. Who’d have thunk it.
Compromise, naturally, can be quite useful. But in politics, compromise is too often conflated with being compromised — and evidently, the American people are growing increasingly distrustful of a political class who pretends that reaching deals that enrich the government at the expense of those it supposedly represents, is a good day’s work.
This clarification of our political motivations — as I argued yesterday — is a good thing. While some establishment types continue to try to micromanage the means, the American people, with grass roots movements on both sides of the political spectrum, is fighting over the ends. And given that 40% of Americans identify as either conservative or leaning conservative, having clear choices should favor those of us who have been agitating for a return to principles-based politics.
That the establishment GOP seems so distrustful of this impulse — despite the ideological numbers being clearly in their favor — tells you all you need to know about that establishment, which long ago sold out principles for the ebb and flow of power that will eventually give them back control of the public purse.
Kick the bums out. Because even if we lose in the short term, we win in the long run — if only by way of creating clear choices going forward, and re-teaching the American electorate of the importance of political ideology.
Porkulus, The GM bailout and Obamacare – my three touchstones.
If the congress-critter voted for them, they are gone – and I don’t give a crap about what party they nominally belong to.
“. . . the American people are growing increasingly distrustful of a political class who pretends that reaching deals that enrich the government at the expense of those it supposedly represents is a good day’s work.”
It still seems to me that beyond insisting on a representation of principles in politics, without which nothing good will come, it may additionally be worthwhile should voters work a bit at determining the psychological type of the professional ruling class, then develop, by contrast, the psychological type of the politician who the voter would sooner see in office. Perhaps there is a small chance the exercise will prove moot and so possibly a waste of a short time and mental effort, but I don’t believe it would be a detriment in itself. Any additional clarity on the question who we should send to government service ought to be welcome.
My first impression is to suspect that that’s a garbage-in garbage-out kind of a question, Jeff.
Repost:
– The Demorats and the WH have floated the official game plan they intend to follow in dealing with the coming shit storm they face in November, and the dutiful lapdog MFM is already swinging into action to CYA as fast and furious as possible for the light bringer and his corp of Socialist zombies.
* Say nothing on any subject that talks about Bumbblefucks performance in office.
* Attack in any way possible any and all opposition candidates.
* Always frame every mention of polls and job approval comparisons of Bumbblefuck against Bush, and be sure to always state everything currently wrong as something Bambi “inherited”.
– The fact they think this bullshit is going to save their sorry asses just proves they’re as fucked up as the majority of Americans already know they are.
Update 1
– It also proves that the usual suspects have seen the enemy and they still don’t “get it”, which is probably all to the good.
– BTW, Ahmad-dinerjackets UN speech today sounded eerily like he was borrowing “evil Capitalism” cliff notes from Axelrod and Bumbblefucks Lame ass oratory. Maybe Bambi should be over in Iran running for president.
The “Big Tent” is a lie.
The most ardent compromisers who decry “purity” at every opportunity are the same people that gave us John McCain while denigrating Sarah Palin while also holding up Mike Castle as an example of smart pragmatism.
Screw ’em!
The big tent isn’t a lie per se, it’s just that the elitist establishment types can’t decide if they wan’t us conservative/classical liberal types in the tent at all, or only at those times when having us in the tent helps them be the ringmaster (so to speak).
Again, who wants a big tent? There are some of us who want us each to have our own little tent and stay the fu<k out of it and call me when you need my firepower.
All right, how about a big campground?
better
Dibs on upwind from the latrines.
Absolutely! But unfortunately, that alone isn’t enough. Power corrupts and a new batch of bums all too willing to be corrupted will only spring up in their place. The only way to reduce the corruption and regain control of our government is to reduce the power and scope of government, and the bums on both sides of the aisle are going to fight that at every turn. It’s taken a long time to arrive at this state of affairs and it will take a long time to turn things around.
But hey! It’s not as if we had anything better to do, right?
Compromise is neither virtue nor vice in itself–it depends on the weight or triviality of what is being compromised As often noted, in any compromise with evil, evil wins.