I think this quote gets to the heart of the issue. Here’s Berg on whether Republican legislators should compromise with Democrats:
Um, Jeff? If the GOP has a bad year in 2010, building on our almost-negligible position today, then why is our cooperation even an issue?
I suppose it’s not an issue from the standpoint of whether the Democrats can pass bills. But it’s certainly a major issue for our policymaking process, the tone of American politics, and ultimately the quality of the policy made in Washington. The Dems can do it alone, and I think they should if they can’t get any cooperation from the GOP — but the results would be much better if lawmakers of both parties were involved.
A related point — and one I covered in my original post — is the ideological makeup of a party’s nominees. One of the reasons for the Democrats’ recent success has been their willingness to embrace more conservative candidates in more conservative districts. Conservative activists have been pushing the GOP in the opposite direction lately with aggressive challenges from the right. That’s certainly their right, but I think in the long run it will damage the Republican party.
There’s at least one Republican out there that agrees with me, and that’s Lindsay Graham:
The morning after Republicans lost an upstate New York House seat, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that conservative activists will bring destruction to the Republican Party if they drive out moderate candidates across the country.
“To those people who are pursuing purity, you’ll become a club not a party,” Graham told POLITICO in the Capitol Wednesday. “Those people who are trying to embrace conservatism in a thoughtful way that fits the region and the state and the district are going to do well. Conservativism is an asset. Blind ideology is not.”
Graham is right on — it’s blind ideology that’s the problem. I’m not saying that Republicans should nominate candidates whose views match Barack Obama’s, or that their votes should be indistinguishable from Democrats’. But when you have candidates who are more concerned with fitting into a national movement than they are with the result they’re providing for their district, that’s a problem.
Now, Berg would say that I shouldn’t be concerned about the direction the GOP moves. After all, if I’m right, then we’ll just have more Democrats, and how could I have a problem with that, right? But in a way, I do have a problem with that. My primary interest isn’t the success of the Democratic party, it’s the success of the country. That sounds cheesy, but it’s true — and it can’t happen without some give and take. Neither party has a monopoly on good ideas, and both need to be involved in the legislative process.
One party can govern without the other and we stumble forward. But what really bothers me is the name-calling. I've had it with Republicans calling Democrats and liberals Nazis, terrorists, murderers, traitors, Commies, etc. I suppose these are opposite sides of the same coin, though. How do you compromise with someone if you believe they will kill your granny?
The issues around compromise and idealogical purity are fundamental to both parties. The parties need broad support in order to gain enough legislative power to effect policy. The diverse set of cultures and beliefs that exist in the electorate means that to gain that broad support a party must accept many internal contradictions. These contradictions reduce the quality of the support since nobody honestly believes every action of the party is the right one.
To counter these tendencies and maximize the depth of their support while maintaining enough breadth to win elections the parties work at reducing the diversity of opinions they have to deal with. Marginalizing those who point out internal contradictions while promoting themselves primarily by motivation rather than method. Using the idea that those who support different methods must desire negative results. Since the system in which both parties operate rewards certain actions it is no wonder they have evolved to become virtually identical. Ideology is a dirty word and the motivations are primarily political. Despite the rhetoric used by either party their actions not different and consistent fashion to be predictable.
Just look at how even with a majority in both the house and the senate to go along with the executive the party in power is struggling to enact anything but the weakest form of health care reform. Instead what is produced are bills which are little more than very expensive marketing initiatives like Cash for Clunkers.
I believe that people mostly want the same results but differ in their beliefs on the best methods to achieve them. Discussing the merits of these different methods takes a lot more energy than constructing arguments which equate a particular method with a desire for negative results. Such as saying that anybody who wants to provide a safety-net obviously is hoping to construct gulags for their political opponents or that anybody that wants to reduce the size of government likes to laugh at the homeless and string up minorities.
The baseless and shallow name-calling seems to act as both filler for those with nothing important to add and as white noise used to drowned out possibly valid but contradictory views. On that issue no side is demonstrably better than another.
Oh yes, the purity of the democratic party. Why can't we all be like them? There is name calling on both sides of the aisle, so don't be a hypocrite. Is the passing of an energy bill this morning without support from a single minority member compromise? There is no compromise from the democrats in Congress right now. That leaves us with the same options your side would be employing if the shoe were on the other foot. So, expect more of the same until the democrats want to be civil again.
If the republicans had wanted to participate, they certainly could have attended.
I would venture to say that Democrats rarely, if ever, compromise. Its not in their makeup. As the Congressman from NY recently put it…"I dont care if EVERY constituent from my district came in and told me they are against health care reform, I would vote the way I want to vote because I know whats good for them." Not verbatim, but close.
I dont believe there should be ANY lose of ideological purity from either side. The politicians are there to do but ONE thing…FIGHT for the principles and ideologys of their respective parties. The Democrats are much more disciplined at this.
The politicians are fighting for the principles and ideology of their party, but they are also elected by the people who they are suppose to represent. Too many are putting ideology over their constituents desires. Those people should be replaced. This trend began on Tuesday. There are good Democrats across this land that have to resist the ideological hijacking of the far left that is trying to reshape this country into something the majority does not want.
CMan,
The people want, by overwhelming majorities, a public option health care plan. You say politicians should follow the will of the people, well, this is it. Democrats were elected to put health care reform in place. Tea Baggers are loud, but not anywhere near the voice of the people of this country.
And the house leader stated unequivocably that he has not spoken to ONE PERSON outside of the democratic caucus who supports the public option. When you consider that 69-70% of Americans support it…seems a little stupid for him to have said that.
There are numbers for anyone's liking.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204...
It must be backwards day.
Lindsey Graham is right on.
Party leaders, though, need to lead with a bit of humility as well. The Demcrats, for example, had a landslide 2008 election largely because they were the bigger tent party, and they allowed moderate candidates to run in many districts. Those candidates generally won.
Now the moderate candidates are moderate Congressmen and women. Don't be so surprised that they are not blindly backing liberal policy. Sleep in the bed you made.
Case in point — I was listening to a liberal talk radio show where they interviewed Kent Conrad on health reform. Conrad is a centrist on health reform. Conrad finished the interview, and then the hosts, a guest from one of the Democratic National committees, and several callers began railing on Conrad. They hated that this guy from a little state was screwing up their reform plans.
Memo to Dems: North Dakota is a Republican state. Long line of Republicans Governors. McCain even carried NoDak in 2008 by seven points. You should be thankful that you have a D in the Senate seat from North Dakota. You shouldn't piss and moan that the guy isn't liberal enough for you — if he steps down, I'm sure the citizens of North Dakota would love to make John Hoeven (R) their next Senator.
So, MoveOn. org is threatening any conservative or moderate democrats who oppose the far left wing radical policies of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi freight train. Any train can be derailed. Keep up the pressure on the government takeover of our country. This group appears hell bent on rahming bad legislation through with no regard for opposition or political harm. Can't quite figure it out, but hopefully America will come to its senses and avoid irreversible harm.
The main point is that defining a mapping for Web apps (.WAR files) using the Blueprint Container as the development environment and JDBC/JPA for persistence would seem to meet the requirements for a large number of enterprise applications, and represent a good starting point for the initial release of the Java EE mapping work.
We're about to find out.