Finn dAbuzz wrote:
They are certainly not going to start off with a bill that has a good chance of passing because it already contains compromises. The question is whether or not they will be willing to compromise to get something passed that may not be 100% of what they want but meets a lot of their wishes.
What they have to do is stop thinking in terms of centralized planning within a total-system-control paradigm and start thinking about building a good society together with people who don't think like they do.
I don't believe in compromise, but I do believe in common ground. I am not a climate denier or a defender of liberal energy harvesting/use, but I can see common ground with people who deny climate change but want to protect and preserve natural land, for example. So I try to build the idea that climate security is achieved by maintaining and returning the land to as natural a state as possible, and not by tax-redistribution measures that will fund big government stimulus projects and inflation.
Likewise, they should think of ways to bring lower-cost health providers and pharmaceuticals into the market for people who can't afford the current doctors, dentists, and drugs. Let existing doctors and dentists train apprentices, for example, in exchange for a commission on their revenues for a certain number of years. Let chemists train people how to produce common generic drugs and sell them at a lower cost. In short, stop big businesses from blocking poor people from getting the skills they need to do things for themselves at a lower cost.
If they don't compromise, their bills won't get passed into law, but I don't think they will have been motivated to not bend because of a fear of appearing to be working with the enemy.
I think you are underestimating the power of their identity politicking. There is a culture of ridicule for Republicans and empathy/compassion for 'the oppressed' and those who defer to them. If one crosses the picket line and suggests working with Trump, the others will view her or him as a traitor and build up ridicule against them as being co-opted or 'an apologist.' They have all these subtle rhetorical tactics for disciplining resistance against collective submission.
What we seem to now have is a broken government where most things of importance are getting done by Executive branch fiat. This is not good for the country and is due in part to too much time and resources being spent on waging political wars through committee investigations. I don't have any hope that it will change anytime soon, and I have reached the point where I believe all we will see in the future is periods of stagnancy and rancor from a divided government to periods of laws of which only half the country approve being shoved down the throats of the other half.
Right, but whenever they do that, the other party retaliates in kind once they get into power again. If they don't somehow start working together, things are going to get really bad in the world and the people who delight in that because they think it will somehow benefit them while they lurk out of harm's way will find themselves caught in the thick of it like a neutral country dragged into a world war.
I'm not at all sanguine about the future of this nation as I see no way in which the deep divide that exists can be bridged, and it's only getting worse with each year.
Sometimes I think that the country will be split into separate regions, like what the confederates wanted. But then I realize that that is exactly what the socialists want because they have only to gain from wresting land away from others who own it. As a result, I don't think anyone vested would tolerate a peaceful separation into autonomous regions. I also don't think anyone wants another civil war, so they're going to have to find common ground and achieve it together cooperatively.