Live Q&As

You must be crazy!  A non-zero-sum approach to politcs?  Remain animated by what your party can accomplish, not how much pain you can inflict on the "other" side?  Do politics as if we are one nation with competing approaches regarding how to achieve what is best for all, not just good guys and bad guys endlessly banging away at each other?  That's just crazy, right?

Clearly, you are not crazy at all, but a wise and hopeful individual, whose words remind us not only of what is wrong with so much of contemporary politics, but of how we might do better.  Thank you for both your wisdom and and your hopefulness.

Practically speaking, the one thing all of us can do, is reward those politicians who function as you and I would hope they would, and punish those who do not.  Let elected officials know that whether we are in full agreement with the final deal or not, we, the electorate will support those who worked hardest to make a deal, and will withdraw support from those who "fiddled while our economy burned".

When we shift our politcal culture from one of pledges and postualtes, to one of deal-making and relationship building, we will all be better off. 

There are certainly some -- though not many - who agree with you.  But regardless of the economic theories and presumptions which guide one's thinking about whatever should happen and the expected results thereof, you can't possibly think that the endless posturing  and ideological rigidity which we are seeing, are good for us as a nation, or could you?

There is a tiny piece of me which can imagine that this really is all theater and that such theater is a part of the politcal game.  But it's a pretty mabre form of theater, if that is what it is, and it certainly sends the message that politicians on both sides and including the President, are willing to sacrifice the average American in the name of their own politcal well-being.  It's hard not to be disappointed in THAT.

You ar cetainly correct about the fact that it's always easier to "kick the can down the road" than to deal with the trash today.  In fact, we all do it in various ways in our own lives to varying degrees, so one could argue that our politicians should be no different.  Except that they should be different, at least when it comes to the public.  They are PUBLIC officials after all!  If they want to eat an extra dessert today on the promise of doing more excercise tomorrow, that's fine, but taking that approach with our entire nation is not fine.

Why?  Because we humans are natural adjusters and we tend to assume that what we are used to now, is how things are supposed to be, and often even pretend that it is how they always were! 

In many regards, our ability to make the present fit with our memories of the past and our expectations of teh future, is actually a really good thing -- but now always.  Sometimes we need to admit that things have been different in the past, can change in teh future, and that we will still be able to move forward without losing our way.

Of course, to do that, politicians on both sides would have to stop recalling the past, and forcasting the future, in ways that always confirm that which they themselves already believe.  They would have to admit that both the past and the future are not as clear as they often tell us they were, that those with whom they disagree are also necessary, and that however we go forward, it always works best when the greatest range of opinions and possibilities are relfected in whatever policy is ultimately decided upon.

You have perfectly identified the "conspiracy" on both sides of the aisle -- a "conspiracy" which exploits the fears and angers of each side's base, for political gain, rather than actually addressing the real issues.

For example, almost all economists agree that more revenue will need to come from wealthier Americans, in order to get our financial house in order.  Those same economists also agree that raising the marginal tax rates on those making 250k per year will make almost no real difference in achieveing that goal.  The people who make really huge money, much of which does not get spent in ways that strenghten the economy, will still pay the 14-16% they pay on money made in various financial deals. 

The 250k was determined by those who figured out that that was the number at which a so-called "fairness" argument could be invoked to political advantage.  That's a pretty poor way to make a decision, and one which is as cynacle and threatening to punish politicians who refuse to take pledges to never raise another tax dollar.

Your use of teh word "cave" is very significant, and I think reflects why we are in this bind of having to solve a long-term issue in a last-minute way.

If Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, continue to confuse making pragmatic deals with "caving", then they will not make the deals and we will all suffer for it.  The fact that principled pragmatism has conme to be seen, on both sides of the aisle, as less than a fully committed position is pretty disturbing.  If people cannot shift their thinking and subsequent action without losing their sense of self and/or their office, they will not make the shifts we need in order to navigate through the crises we face.

There is far greater wisdom and honor in navigating to a sub-optimal port, than in being the captain who goes down with the ship because they wouldn't be caught dead in anyplace other than their originally intended destination.

I appreciate what you are saying, though I think that is a bit extreme.  The "throw them all out" approach simply substitutes one form of rigidity for another.  There is an alternative -- one which respects your view wihtout going quite so far.

Let officials know, as I wrote earlier, that those who make deals will be rewarded and those who do not, will not, even if we ourselves don't totally love the deal that gets made.  Let them know that paralysis in the name of a hallowed politcal or economic theory is far less desireable than is pragmatism which respects throy but demands getting something done, even more.

For the same darn reason that the Democrats picked it -- they can exploit feeling of rage and anger by doing so, and because were we to limit our focus say, on those who made a million dollars a year, or even 500k (as Warren Bufett has suggested), they seem more distant to the masses of Republicans who fight against all tax hikes for those making 250.

That's like saying that we should get of the mosquitos in the back yard with a nuclear device!  It will accomplsih the intended goal, but it will also have dire consequences as well.

In fact, the cliff was designed because teh cuts were seen as so draconian and potentially damaging, that no sane people would allow that to happen.  Tragically, politicians are now betting against the American people, and presume that we will look past their disfuntionality as long as they chanpion whatever ideology we happen to like.  In many ways, if they get away with that, we should blame oursleves as much as them.

If that is correct, and I am not sure that it is (think Tip O'Neal and ronald Reagan), we have only ourselves to blame for continuing to re-elect ideologues instead of public servants.

To the extent that the benefits and/or costs are political, and we agree about that being the real issue here, then it is up to the citizens who hold the keys to the politicians' next victory or loss.

I hear you, and would make one small adjustment to your process.  Listen to BOTH sides because the truth is often NOT in teh middle per se, but may be an amalgam of views from both sides.  In other words, the solution is not always to split the difference, as much as it is to learn form both sides and create a third alternative.  You may see that as a too fine distinction, but I assure you it is not.

"Extreme" positions can actually be correct, but it is rare that when one takes all of the extremes of one camp, and ignores all those of the other, that a wise response will be found.  On the other hand, discounting a position simply because it comes from either the far-raight or far-left, robs us of alternatives which may actually be needed.

As to why people find all of this so difficult, it is because we are trained from very early on to confuse purety of thought with wisdom and sophistication, stuborness with loyalty, and adaptation with weakness.  The last is particulalry ironic given that we are only here because our ability to adapt.

That's an overstatement, I think, but it's hard not to at least sympathise with your words.  On the other hand, to the extent that you don't see that same trend among people like Speaker Pelosi, and to a lesser extent the post-election iteration of the President, you are seeing only half a picture.

Here's a suggestion for those who would like to keep us from going over the cliff:  identify where those politicians you support are being obstructionist, and demand that they make moves which bring them closer to there opponants, no matter what they ahve said in teh past or what promises they made in the last campaign.  If both sides did that, we would have a deal before Christmas.

What a beautiful and powerful image to evoke.  David Broder indeed.  Thank you, especially from me personally, as he is one of my role models.

If it's any comfort, I think he would be not only disturbed, but sagely sanguin.  He would caution us to combine outrage about what is going on in both parties, but also remind us that we are a great nation populated with good people, and that we have every reason to believe that however bumpy the road, we will travel the road to a better place.