The Audacity of Compromise: Why McCain Is Better For America Than Obama
by Aaron Rodriguez | View comments |
Print This Post
Real change within a two-party system is unlikely unless people are willing to cross the political aisle in order to accomplish their goals and promote their agendas.
“Hope” and “change” have been the oft-chanted mantras of the 2008 Presidential campaign. Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama has made those two words the central motif of his entire bid for office, and has motivated unprecedented numbers of supporters at his speeches and rallies as a result. Coupled with the poignant fact that he’s the first African-American to clinch a major-party nomination to run for President of the United States, and what we have is a political impetus that represents a monumental challenge for any opponent.
But is the very foundation of Obama’s campaign a legitimate goal, or political opportunism with little “hope” of actually realizing any positive “change?”
The chanted mantra of “yes we can,” made historic by massive throngs of Obama supporters at campaign rallies, only rings true if a candidate can provoke a people to unite behind a common goal. Real change within a two-party system is unlikely unless people are willing to cross the political aisle in order to accomplish their goals and promote their agendas. Simply put, compromise is the only hope for productive and lasting change. And since half of a loaf is better than none, Democrats and Republicans must abandon their more extreme positions and settle with a policy somewhere in the middle.
In the late 1700s, a battle raged between the states over the notion of representation. The larger states favored a representation that was based upon dense population and greater financial backing, whereas the smaller states naturally favored a system of representation that gave them an equal voice in legislative matters. It was a conflict that was hotly debated for months. (In fact, the debate became so ill-tempered that Benjamin Franklin addressed the Continental Congress about their function as consultants, not contenders.) The New Jersey Plan, proposed by William Paterson, recommended a single house national legislature whereby each state could cast only one vote. This essentially negated what was perceived as the unfair advantage of larger states. On the other side was the Virginia Plan, proposed by Edmund Randolf, which recommended a bicameral legislature whereby each state was represented in proportion to size and monetary contributions.
Eventually, the two sides found some common ground. Roger Sherman, the most politically experienced and respected member of the Continental Congress, brokered an accommodation that later became known as “The Great Compromise.” Sherman proposed a bicameral legislature referred to as the upper and lower houses. The lower house (the House of Representatives) representation would be decided in proportion to state size and would be chosen by the people with a majority vote. And the upper house (the Senate) would represent all states equally through a fixed number of representatives and would be appointed by the state legislatures. As history judges, one man proposed a centrist idea in the midst of aggressive debate, and it left us with a legacy that endures to this very day.
We can learn from history. Real change occurs, not by one person’s force of will, but through the medium of compromise. As history tells us, both sides of the debate were willing to back off something they initially wanted, and they found the middle ground thanks to the role played by one experienced man who fostered an atmosphere of compromise and cooperation. Needless to say, U.S. history is chock full of many hard fought battles that helped hammer out such substantive governmental concepts like federalism, the separation of powers, the rule of law, the powers delegated to Congress, and many other critical issues that paved the way for political progress.
According to the political analysis of the National Journal, released in January of ‘08, Obama was the single most liberal senator in 2007. The criteria used to determine the most liberal from the most conservative is based upon actual roll-call votes on economic, social, and foreign policy issues gathered by Polidata, a non-partisan political analysis firm, and sent to the Brookings Institution for processing and statistical analysis.
Senator Obama voted with the party line 65 out of 66 times. By rounding up to the nearest tenth, this means he voted according to the liberal agenda 99% of the time in 2007. Using the same criteria, it should be pointed out that in 2005, Obama was ranked the 16th most liberal in the Senate. And in 2006, he ranked 10th. A trend has become increasingly clear during the course of his Senate career, and it does not appear to indicate a familiarity with the art of compromise. Rather, he has been systematically moving away from the middle.
The National Journal has kept annual rankings of congressmen since 1981, and it clearly displays the trend of Senator McCain’s conservatism throughout his career. Since McCain came to the Senate, his voting record has steadily moved from the right toward the center of the political spectrum. For instance, in 1994, McCain scored 89% in his conservatism ranking. However, over the course of the following three years, 1995, ‘96, and ‘97, his conservatism score dipped into the 70% range. In the subsequent four years of 1998, ‘99, 2000, and ‘01, he continued to move toward the center, scoring in the range of 60%. And finally, in the most recent years of 2004, ‘05, and ‘06, he plunged into the 50s. Clearly, McCain has moved toward the ideological center on foreign policy, economic, and social issues. If compromise can be more easily realized from the center, then McCain is well positioned to be the true advocate of change.
McCain’s political experience must also be factored into the discussion on compromise. Ann Coulter humorously criticized McCain for being a member of Congress for about 400 years and implied that he was more conservative during the Spanish-American War of 1898 than he is today. Humor aside, much can be said about the benefits of extensive congressional experience. For example, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the Presidency with 26 years of political experience. In fact, he was undoubtedly the most experienced and arguably the most productive politician in U.S. history. With his experience and a Democrat-controlled Congress, LBJ was able to implement many of his “Great Society” programs in just a few short years. Jeffery Lord commented on this very point in an article he wrote for the American Spectator magazine in which he highlighted the productivity of LBJ, who essentially took Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal philosophy to its logical end of extreme government expansionism.
Regardless how we may feel about the programs he implemented, LBJ’s productivity as President wouldn’t have been possible without a clear and intimate knowledge of how politics works in Congress. Similarly, Roger Sherman’s political experience and willingness to find some common ground allowed him to broker the “Great Compromise.” Both of these men were more capable of effecting change, in part, due to their considerable experience in the legislature. And while political longevity may not translate into Presidential greatness, it is beneficial to greater Presidential productivity. Put another way, excellence in leadership may not come with experience, but candidates who lack sufficient experience are less likely to realize excellence.
Like Roger Sherman, McCain possesses the two essential ingredients a politician needs for promoting positive change. First, he has accrued over 26 years of political experience. He knows many people in powerful positions, and has connections and contacts that his opponent simply lacks, unless, of course, we consider Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Father Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, and their ilk. And second, his centrist voting record suggests he is more capable of effecting positive change than Obama, whose voting record shows a progressively leftward pattern. When McCain and Obama are considered side by side, the political capacity to provoke positive change must lie with the candidate proven by his history and voting record to possess a willingness to work with others. American is ready for another Roger Sherman, and that candidate is John McCain.
superman@beliefcorner.com
http://www.beliefcorner.com
Read more articles by Aaron Rodriguez
So you argue that because McCain is more centered and experienced he should be be elected. First of all you failed to include McCain's voting record for 2007 and 2008 respectively. In 2007 he voted in line with Bush 100%, that is every vote he voted what Bush wanted when he didn't abstain from voting. So far in 2008 he is at 95%. Clearly that isn't exactly in the center. I think these methods of judging liberal and conservative are useless anyway. Remember in 2004 Kerry was also magically declared the most liberal senator of 2003. And do people really think Obama is more liberal than Dodd? Looking at stances on issues then certainly not.
As far as experience goes Lincoln was far from being the most experienced candidate, in fact his record is strikingly similar to Obama's. Both liberal and conservative historians generally rank Lincoln as having been our best president, whereas LBJ generally is barely in the top ten. That isn't to say he was a bad president but didn't do as well as someone much less experienced.
Finally is there much difference between saying 9/11 was god's punishment like Pat has said, when he has come so close to McCain recently than saying "God damn america"?
Finally I don't want to just rant. It is better for very one when matters are discussed rather than just bashed so I would be open to criticisms.
Comment by Fluvre | June 19, 2008
Fluvre,
Clearly you're accustomed to liberal blogs where everything's made up and the points don't matter. You probably won't get much traction here. Most of the people on the right don't like John McCain. So running down McCain isn't a good way to instigate. He doesn't represent conservative thought in any way, shape, or form, as indicated by the article. You won't find any cheerleaders with whom you can mindlessly counter-cheer for your anointed one. If you want to equate Pat Robertson or Hagee independently endorsing John McCain with some racial separatist kook who's been Barack Obama's pastor, personal friend, and mentor of 20 years, the place to do it is somewhere where A) it is actually the intended topic of discussion and B) anyone actually still cares.
On top of that, you utterly missed the point of the article. Political experience and the ability to compromise are indeed one way to "get things done". If all you're interested in doing is "getting things done", you can do it pretty easily by waffling, compromising, selling out your principles, and making do. The article's author views this as beneficial. More often, it is not. For instance, nominating judges who are palatable to leftist activists who believe in judicial legislating is a good way to get a judge put on the bench if your congress is largely leftist. It will certainly "get it done". Is having a leftist judicial activist judge legislating from the bench beneficial for the country? Is the compromise really accomplishing anything? If your goal is simply "put a judge on the bench", the answer is yes. If your goal is more lofty, like, oh, say, having a judge on the bench who will adhere to the constitutional role of the judiciary and apply fair standards of law to the cases he hears, then not so much.
If one "side" is right, and the other is wrong, this mystical nirvana of the "center" is at least half wrong. Compromise usually means sacrificing something that is right (read: correct, factual, logical, constitutional) for something that is wrong (read: incorrect, not factual, illogical, unconstitutional). "Compromise" between a wise man and an idiot is of no benefit to the wise man.
Let us not forget that the very same Roger Sherman who negotiated the Great Compromise was also responsible for the Three Fifths Compromise. Let's also look at the flip side of the author's Lyndon Johnson argument: What did those who opposed his Utopian "Great Society" get in return for "compromising"? Moderated Bolshevism? Reform Bolshevism? Collectivist socialism wasn't any less egregious after "compromise". That a candidate has been willing to be on the dead-wrong side of an issue is no indication of his virtue.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 21, 2008
Mr. Mulligan's analysis, both of the piece's author & the 1st commentor, are spot-on.
But, McCain as a "Great Compromiser" is fallacious because a compromise implies both sides get a half-loaf. McCain's tactic is to take up residence on the Left side of the isle & have his mail forwarded.
Conservatives don't like McCain simply because he lies about being one of them. A great example of this is his amnesty policy. He has taken to saying he's "gotten it", but as recently as this week, he's started a"closet wispering tour" limited to Hispanics & no recording devices where he repudiates his close-the-boarders position. Unfortunately for him, a Hispanic-American Minuteman was in attendence and has blown the whistle.
This puts tactic every public statement he's made in doubt. It is McCain' most non-conservative trait. We cannot abide a liers.
Didn't mean to start off on McCain, it is simply that he's this century's perfect example of why compromise of Core Principles isn't possible. If you can compromise on it, it isn't Core. The Founding Fathers didn't compromise on Core Principles, but on the mechanics.
Even the "Great Compromise" on slavery wasn't a compromise, because the mechanics were put it place that allowed its erasure from our society. That was the basis of the 3/4s-man representation item.
Please excuse spelling errors, I'm on the web using a PDA w/o spell check…
– martin.musculus
Comment by martin.musculus | June 22, 2008
Thank you for the comments about the article. I wish to clear up some issues that I feel couldn't receive the appropriate attention due to size restrictions of the article.
In response to the first commentator, the National Journal shows a fairly clear trending of McCain's voting record throughout his congressional career, despite whether 2007 was left out. And the trend demonstrates a clear evolution from the right to the center of the political spectrum. In my opinion, the only way to defeat this point is by demonstrating that the criteria used by the National Journal to determine the conservatism of McCain and the liberalism of Obama was is somehow flawed. I have yet to see this happen. At most, I've heard complaints about the "findings" of National Journal rather than the methodology used.
———————–
In response to the second commentator, it is clear to me that compromise isn't always a good thing, particularly in matters where a policy is clearly right or clearly wrong. So your criticism of "selling out" is taken as a salient point. However, on the flip side, without the art of compromise good things are unlikely to happen. I think we can all relate to this point in our personal or business relationships when people are consistently unwilling to work out a solution that's mutually beneficial to both parties involved.
My chief concern is with this mentality or perception that one side is always right and the other is always wrong. This fosters the very bullish behavior and political game-playing we see in Congress right now. My position is that right and wrong isn't always clear, and those who are seriously invested in their own positions need to possess a disposition of open mindedness and an ability to step away from political obstinacy for the benefit of the American citizenry.
I agree with you that there are some issues that cannot be compromised. For instance, it's fairly clear to me that the recent Supreme Court decision about granting Constitutional rights of Habeas Corpus to enemy combatants is wrong. This issue shouldn't have been compromised, and I don't think McCain would compromise on this issue either. However, I tend to view right and wrong in the realm of politics from a skeptical viewpoint, and therefore tend to advocate an art of compromise, which I believe Obama does not possess in the slightest bit.
—————————-
In response to the third commentator, I think it's a misrepresentation that McCain is not a conservative. McCain falls into the neo-conservative camp particularly because he has a tendency to tolerate a more active role of the federal government that deviates from the classical conservative conception that the government is only meant to protect us from harm and fraud. However, he is not a liberal either. He does not presume that the federal government's function is to nurture us like we see with liberal programs like welfare. McCain is not dead set against social programs as long as it fosters some independence and eventual productivity, and this is part of the reason why he is a neo-conservative. But this is besides the point. I don't want to get into a debate in the commentary section of why I believe McCain is a brand of conservative rather than some brand of liberal. His voting record on national defense demonstrates his conservatism. And I think the National Journal does a good job showing his conservative philosophy throughout his voting record in Congress.
Comment by Aaron Rodriguez | June 22, 2008
Also, I forgot to mention, this article is also featured at http://www.beliefcorner.com, which also features a commentary section. We also take article submissions if any are interested publishing a topic of interest.
Comment by Aaron Rodriguez | June 22, 2008
I understand your point. And compromise is a tool that must be used in politics to get what one wants. Nevertheless, political issues frequently come down to a question of ideology and fundamental assumptions, one of which is bound to be right, and one of which is bound to be wrong. The consequences of compromise on such issues often seem trivial at the time, but cause a subtle erosion of the ideology and assumptions that are right. One must be very careful to avoid the slippery slope of political compromise and end up marginalizing his "side" on the issue by conceding it. This is what conservatives have done on myriad issues, from spending, welfare, taxation, gun control, states' rights, etc, etc, etc.
For instance, take Social Security. There is no longer any question as to whether or not the government should use public funds to support retirees, but rather how much they should spend, what age the retirees should be, etc. We gave up the fundamental ideological question on that issue - does the government have the right to collect taxes from working people to redistribute to retired people. As a result, the conservative position on that issue is now to quibble over the rate at which the government should collect the tax and redistribute the wealth - it is given that the government has every right in the world to do so. What started as a 1% pittance to support people who lost their savings in the depression (hardly worth quibbling over, given the seemingly greater political issues of the day) is now a bloated government wealth redistribution program that is bankrupting the treasury.
Compromise only works when both sides agree on the fundamental issue. If we agree that states should have representation in a national federal government, we can disagree on how many representatives each state should have, how they should be apportioned, etc, and then we can compromise on those details. If you believe that states should have representation in a national federal government, but I believe that the states should be consolidated into one national government with no parliamentary representation of any kind, we cannot compromise without one side sacrificing their fundamental position, because our positions are totally incompatible.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 22, 2008
Just a thought to add to the mix. When you have two opposing ideas a compromise may be a temporary fix. But if the original ideas don't disappear the parties will never be satisfied and will strive to have their position at some point rule the roost.
What I am saying is that on key core issues there ultimately are only winners and losers. The "middle ground" never satisfies either side, it is only a temporary truce in an ideological war.
Minor issues of course can be solved by compromise as neither side is absolutely committed to their position. But this is not so on major issues such as morals or what society should look like. On issues like these there is no compromise, only a struggle for ultimate victory.
Comment by NHGrouch | June 23, 2008