• Comment (7)

The Republican Definition of 'Compromise'

April 26, 2012 RSS Feed Print

What is compromise? Getting more of what you want, according to House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price of Georgia.

Appearing this morning at a policy briefing hosted by National Journal and United Technologies, Price was asked by National Journal's John Aloysius Farrell (a former U.S. News contributing editor) whether a term in office would make the Tea Party freshmen more likely to compromise.

[Check out political cartoons about the Tea Party.]

His response was classic: “Compromising is one thing as long as you’re compromising and moving in the direction of your principles. If you’re compromising and moving away from the direction of your principles, I’m not sure it’s a compromise.”

Of course by definition, compromising means, um, compromising your principles. Here in fact is the dictionary definition of the word: “an adjustment of opposing principles … by modifying some aspects of each.”

One of the enduring themes from the Obama-Tea Party years here in Washington has been on compromise—whether and when it’s a good thing and how one defines it. Polls have consistently shown that liberals and independents want compromise, but conservatives prefer their leaders to stick to their guns. Democrats have exploited this public opinion gap by portraying Republicans, accurately in my view, as being a party of hardliners unwilling to make the kind of compromises necessary to solve the nation’s problems, especially in a time of divided government. See, for example, their unwillingness to seriously consider the revenue side of the deficit problem.
But since “compromise” is a concept popular with swing voters, they feel the need to radically redefine it in a way they can embrace. (It’s kind of like their Medicare plans.)

[See editorial cartoons about the GOP.]

Coda: California Rep. Xavier Becerra, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus was interviewed at the event after Price and was asked what a bipartisan solution to the deficit problem would look like. Here’s his answer: “Bipartisan means that at the end, everyone will hate it, and people will all complain that it hit them to some degree. No one should be left out, as I said, all hands on deck.”

Kudos to Becerra for supplying a reality-based answer and apparently understanding the oldspeak definition of “compromise."

  • Follow Robert Schlesinger on Twitter at @rschles
  • Check out U.S. News Weekly: an insiders to politics and policy
  • Follow the Thomas Jefferson Street blog on Twitter at @TJSBlog.
Tags:
Republican Party,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (7)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The Democrats definition of compromise is "dictatorship" judging by the way Obama always circumvents Congress!

Get real, Schlitslinger!

Haberdashery of ID 5:49AM April 27, 2012

"Compromise" in the smart sense to a politician will mean that he does not get all that he wants, and gets some stuff that while he does not like it, does not offend his morals.

In the case of the 'pubs, the Dems continually want to force things like federally-paid abortion, medical care rationing, and security-damning military cuts down their throats. THOSE type of "compromises" are not something that the 'pubs will ever swallow without massive protests, and you can be sure that they will do everything possible in fighting back against them.

If you want the 'pubs to "compromise", the Dems will have to come up with items that don't totally offend them.

So far, their record on that is pretty poor.

junior of DC 9:34PM April 26, 2012

feedupinamerica of NC

brucetee gave a simular argument in recent pass. He made mistake of using inappropriate sources. Guess he failed to read article. Here was my answer to him then:

bruce b of NV _ In “Ted Nugent, Hilary Rosen Sheltering Obama from Scrutiny” you wrote “In fact average workers during that period,lost ground, due to stagnant wage increases,and reduced purchasing power".

Did not find proof of that in your two links. Prehaps you can quote as I do... For sure, your earlier quote “the economic growth,of which he speakes, benefited, by a wide margin,those on the upper rungs of the income ladder. very little ,if any, trickled down to the folks on main st” __ is NOT substantiated __ ... What he spoke has nothing to do with your two articles...

In the first link it says “Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots”

Also says “One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University”

Also says “International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.”

Also says “While average folks were losing ground in the economy, the wealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, and driving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest of America”

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm

YOUR SECOND ARTICLE SAID ___ Second says “The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/16/1713834/census-1-in-2-americans-are-poor.html#storylink=cpy”

YOU WROTE __ Don’t see how this, as you wrote, “In fact average workers during that period,lost ground, due to stagnant wage increases,and reduced purchasing power" MATCH UP as proof.

__

As I have quoted before (Reason for recession and high unemployment. Nothing to do with tax cuts for rich):

"It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford."

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 8:51PM April 26, 2012

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Political Enemies: Good vs. Perfect

In politics the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement