Mixtures of Good and Bad Ideas

/in /by

Now that both Paul Ryan and Barack Obama have unveiled their respective plans for our national budget, at least in broad outline form, the airwaves will be filled with talk of “good ideas” and “bad ideas.”

My experience suggests that if I wish to engage someone who disagrees with me on a given issue, the surest way to insure that our conversation ends abruptly is for me to hold tenaciously to the questionable proposition that all my ideas are good and all his ideas are bad. I have always tried to present a strong rationale for what I considered to be my good ideas. But, as I have listened respectfully to the ideas of someone who disagrees with me, I often found that some of my initial ideas were bad in comparison to some of his good ideas. And in the best of conversations, my partner also made adjustments in his initial views about good ideas and bad ideas.

So, in the heated budget debate that is upon us, it is reasonable for those on both sides of the aisle to present strong rationales for their respective proposals. But I hope, possibly naively, that each politician will be open to the possibility that those on the other side of the aisle have some ideas that are better than their initial ideas. Such openness will be necessary to attain bipartisan consensus.

In the book Mutual Treasure that Michael King and I edited, King calls this give-and-take between those holding opposing views the “seeking for mutual treasure.” Many will not want to embark on such a mutual quest because they are convinced that there is absolutely no treasure to be found in opposing views. But you can’t predict beforehand the results of a genuine conversation. If politicians on both sides of the aisle are willing to engage in respectful conversation, they may find some treasure in the opposing views, without sacrificing their own treasures.

As this budget debate heats up, I would like to reflect on one aspect of Obama’s comments when he unveiled the outlines of his budget plan, his pointing to the importance of both our “individuality” and our “connectivity” as Americans.

To be sure, much of our economic progress throughout our history can be traced to giving self-reliant individuals space to be creative and innovative. Such space needs to be maintained.

However our history also reveals strong elements of “connectivity” between individuals, wherein we embrace an obligation to care for those who are less fortunate than we are, including those who, for various reasons, cannot compete in a “free-market” economy. From my own Christian perspective, promoting such connectivity is central to the command of Jesus that we love others.

It is tempting, but false, to suggest that one of these emphases is the exclusive preoccupation of one of our major political parties, while the other party exclusively embraces the other emphasis. Besides, that presents a false choice. It has to be both/and, not either/or. I hope that persons of good will on both sides of the aisle will embrace the proposition that there are aspects of both our “individuality” and our “connectivity” that need to be embraced, so that the ongoing debate can focus on what those particular aspects are and on the challenging question of the “balance” that needs to be created between these two important emphases.

Wanted: an Even Playing Field for the Budget Debate

/in /by

We have traversed the foothills, but the climb of the Himalayas now begins, to paraphrase one TV pundit’s reflections on the recent budget deal that prevented a government shutdown.

That arduous climb appears to start with one element of common ground – Any attempt to bring about long-term budget deficit reduction will require that politicians on both sides of the aisle address the big ticket items of entitlements, tax structure and military spending. But how does one proceed beyond this modest point of agreement? To date, only a representative of one side of the aisle, Republican Paul Ryan, has put forth a comprehensive proposal that addresses the contentious particulars.

I give credit to Ryan for putting his bold proposal out on the table. Of course, the Democratic pundits are having a field day, calling elements of Ryan’s proposal “bad ideas” that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. That may be the case, and that portion of the debate needs to continue. But that debate is carried out on an uneven playing field until Democrats present a comprehensive proposal, the elements of which Republicans can choose to label as “bad ideas.”

The good news, as I understand it, is that such a comprehensive Democratic plan for dealing with the big ticket budget items is forthcoming. After that proposal is out on the table, it will be possible to have a fair debate as to the relative merits, or demerits, of proposals from both sides of the aisle, hopefully leading to the emergence of further common ground beyond agreeing that we have a long-term budget problem.

I will dare to generalize these reflections on the current budget debate. Whatever the issue at hand, it is all too easy to criticize a position taken by someone else, without allowing for reciprocal criticism of your position, simply because you haven’t stated a position that can be criticized and discussed.

If the “Ideals for Conversation” that I have proposed elsewhere on this web site have any validity, then the quest for substantive common ground will go nowhere unless those who disagree first listen to and seek to understand adequately the contrary positions of others. This obviously requires that the various contrary positions be put on table. Only then can those in conversation begin to uncover where they agree and where they disagree, and go on from there, depending on the purpose of the conversation.

Compromise: A Good or Bad Idea in Politics?

/in /by

It is generally agreed that the tax cut legislation of December 2010 reflected compromises on both sides of the political aisle. Were such compromises warranted?

It depends on your view of the political process. There are those who hold to unyielding fixed positions and will not entertain the possibility of making “mutual concessions” (the dictionary definition of “compromise”). Politics is viewed as an all or nothing enterprise. If that is your view of politics, then compromise is a bad idea.

But there is an alternative view of politics for which compromise is a good idea. That view was captured by President Obama in his comments after the December 2010 tax cut legislation: “compromise means yielding on something each of us cares about to move forward on something all of us care about.” The key word here is “yielding.”

When driving through one of the rotaries (roundabouts) in Massachusetts, “yielding” is not the end of the journey. Rather, it is a temporary delay in an ongoing journey. Analogously, in the December 2010 tax legislation Obama yielded on some matters about which he has strong beliefs, most notably his belief that tax cuts should not be extended to the wealthy. But his political opponents also did some yielding, most notably agreeing to a number of tax breaks for the middle class and an extension of unemployment benefits that Obama supported.

But in agreeing to such a compromise, didn’t both Obama and his political opponents violate their deeply held beliefs? Only if you think that December 2010 was the end of the journey. But what took place in December of 2010 is far from the end of the journey. Obama believes that the tax cuts for the wealthy will not create the significant number of jobs that is a high priority for both parties. His political opponents believe this measure will create many new jobs. Who is correct?  Politicians on both sides of the aisle need to exhibit enough humility to acknowledge that they could be wrong. Only time will tell.

Of course the journey continues now with the raging debate about Obama’s budget proposal. One viewpoint is that Obama failed to show leadership in not tackling  entitlement benefits, military spending, of a major overhaul of the tax code. But there is a more charitable view hinted at in Obama’s words to the Press Corps when he released his budget proposal: “You guys are pretty impatient. If something doesn’t happen today, then the assumption is that it isn’t going to happen.”

Once again, Obama’s own words suggest that he views the political process as a journey in which he yields on certain budgetary convictions, at least for the time being, with hope that further down the road it will be possible to attain compromise on the big ticket budget items. Is that wishful thinking? Again, only time will tell.

These reflections are not intended to express support, or lack of support, for the December 2010 legislation or Obama’s budget proposal.  Rather, it is to indicate my belief that it is appropriate for those on both sides of the aisle to agree on compromises, remembering that compromise, as a good idea, is always a temporary yielding in an ongoing political process. To be sure, that makes politics a messy enterprise that has been likened to the making of sausage, but that is the only way forward when politicians disagree as to the best way to go forward.

An abbreviated version of this essay was published in the The Center for Public Justice’s web publication Capital Commentary.