Should compromise be rescued?

Posted by deBohun 11 years, 7 months ago to Government
9 comments | Share | Flag

$Q: "Compromise, then, is not merely a necessary evil; it is a positive good, a balance wheel that keeps government moving forward instead of toppling."

[Desiring to keep government 'moving forward,' long after all constitutional boundaries have been breached and that
prime law's guarantee of basic rights has been discarded in total, rather than to let a corrupt government topple, is that really what Rauch means to say? If so, it is an odd position for someone to take who has long aligned himself with the libertarian cause. Thoughts?]

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publicati...

All Comments

  • Posted by deBohun 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Duh, no. I would have thought that obvious. The US government has been off track since before it was even in Washington.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Same question. Do you think Washington is okay the way it is? Additional thought, if you don't have time to get it right the first time, when will you have time to fix it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    govt spending as the the stimulant or lack of for the economy is pure Keynes.
    I agree with the rest of your points
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by deBohun 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    My question was also rhetorical, or perhaps Socratic would be more apt. I have had a long-running disagreement with the Burkean adherents in DC. Lives are two short to waste time getting things right.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by deBohun 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't know for certain, but I doubt he is a committed Keynsian, probably more a Chicago monetarist. I could be wrong. I do think that a mere long-term presense in Washington causes people to become all muddled and non-committal. It is a town where everyone agrees to disagree off camera, and to fight on camera, and consequently reality and beliefs gets blurred even for themselves, with professional self-interest as remaining part of the Washington elite being what eventually wins out as their primary guiding light.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1. the sequestration comment-everyone agreed it was nonsensical. yes, everyone in Washington. Not the rest of us. It proved the govt isn't nearly as important as our politicians would have us believe.
    2. He's clearly in the Keynesian camp. He believes that cutting spending will hurt the overall economy. There is no evidence of this.
    3. There is a correct answer, and he thinks we'll just stumble into it? We have managed to push some very small amount of sanity into our economic policy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rhetorical or not, the compromising which has led to a government which no longer exists to do the people's business but to aggrandize themselves and accrete power to the institution should be fought with all strength and will. Or do you think Washington is okay the way it is?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by deBohun 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The writer is known to me and is a fan of Burkean compromise. His question is rhetorical. My question is does he, and those who are sympathetic to his view, realize the consequences of a Burkean approach to an accelerating collapse? One doesn't argue, to my view, 'putting out this house fire is a good idea, we just need to do it slower.'
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo