Compromise is hard - Democratic Underground

bigtree

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Feb-10-10 06:47 PM
Original message

Compromise is hard

I mean this seriously. Most political progress I've witnesses in the time I've been politically-aware has come in the form of compromise legislation. Many landmark advances have come in the form of imperfect legislation which has been modified and improved in the years and generations after passage into law.

I mention this because I don't think many appreciate the power of consensus in advancing a lot of good and necessary legislation through the political system. Conversely, a lot of bad legislation (Patriot Act, Torture law) has been advanced behind the rallying of our least favorable instincts, like fear, mistrust, and anger.

A lot of the ability of the opposition to organize right now is being enhanced by the fact of our majority in Congress and our Democratic WH. I think we need to recognize that, until we manage to generate the same type of opposition-driven energy behind our own initiatives, we won't realize the political leverage the opposition is able to tap into in these off-term and mid-term election seasons. Unfortunately, there isn't much our majority can do to advance legislation, outside of taking up their own obstinate and partisan stand (my choice), except to compromise with republicans where they're compelled or willing to cooperate.

Taking our protests to the streets and (sometimes) to the halls of Congress is a healthy flexing of our democratic system. Our legislative agenda is best served when it is initiated and advocated from the ground up, but, at some point, to convert those ideas into action, our agenda need to be assigned to our legislators we elect to public office - the caretakers and managers of the levers of our democracy.

Baynard Rustin, a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for a movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:

"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."

"Far too many movements lack both a (legislative) perspective and a sense of responsibility, and they fail because of it," Ruskin wrote.

"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin said in his book, Down the Line. "As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it. For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect."

Another important point Ruskin made in reference to unity among blacks within the movement rings true for our own diverse progressive coalitions which have massed to march together in protest, and will be advocating within the system (together or independently) for our Democratic agenda. "In a pluralistic democracy," he wrote, "unity (among we who agree) is a meaningless goal. It is far more important to form alliances with other forces in society which share common needs and common goals, and which are in general agreement over the means to achieve them."

Ruskin's advice about alliances is just the lesson we need to heed as we face off against the republican opposition without the benefit of enough Democratic senators or representatives to overcome predictable filibusters of legislation which intends to reverse the Bush regime's destructive legacy.

Comprising doesn't have to mean rolling over and betraying our principles or our positions. Many protests assume that the legislative process is the dominion of the opposition, and that compromise in the system can only mean a sacrifice of principle or belief. But, our political institutions are designed for both argument and compromise. There is little room in our democracy to dictate one view or the other. While our legislators may come to office with similar goals, like ending the Iraq occupation, they, nonetheless, come to office with a myriad of ideas and approaches to achieve those goals. Those different views and approaches must be reconciled if legislation is to move out of their respective chambers and up the legislative ladder.

For example, if we are to advance any significant energy policy in this term, it will have to come in the form of some sort of compromise. For our side of that compromise to carry weight, Democrats will need time to pressure republicans on the other things they want legislatively. That won't be a transparent effort but the administration and our Democratic leadership can pressure the republicans by controlling the access of their initiatives and proposals with the levers of their majority - in committee and on the floor - to get them to bend their way on Democratic legislation.

Addressing the struggle for civil rights in his own time, Rustin wrote that, "Confronted with a new agenda, we had to come to terms with developing new tactics. When we had absolute demands for the rights of freedom and dignity, we could insist on absolute solutions. But when you are working within the political system,you can no longer deal in absolute terms. You must be prepared to compromise, you must be prepared to make and accept concessions," he wrote.

Achieving legislative solutions to the issues and concerns which confront us will take time. That effort will also, more than likely, take even more protesting. I profess that I'm as frustrated as many here with the lack of progress or support from Congress or the White House. However, as long as we keep our legislative goals at the head of our protests, and form the necessary coalitions of support to advance those legislative efforts within the system, we can assume the necessary responsibility for the consequences of our actions and transform the direction of our movements from agitation to action.