Good governance the way it used to be done

Why be a Democrat?

Or, why be a Republican?  Or a Green, or a Libertarian, or a member of any of the other forty or so recognized political parties currently active in the United States?  Or, why be "decline to state?"

Delve into a Democrat and the response will be deeply demonstrative.  Regard a Republican with the same question and be regaled with resonate replies.  Inquire of an "independent" and incite that individual's inspirations on the inadequacies of the others.

A recent survey conducted and published by The Economist and YouGov provides some substance behind one of my reasons for choice of party affiliation, and perhaps does the same for others, too.



It's obvious that I am a Democrat.  The policies, practices and attitudes that have been the hallmarks of the Democratic Party for most of the last one hundred years are attractive to me.  Also attractive to me is the history of what has worked well for government in the United States.  To me, one of those Democratic attitudes provides the best possible support for building on that history and continuing its success.  That attitude is the willingness to compromise.

Simply said:  Democrats are overwhelmingly willing to compromise; Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to compromise.  The extremes on both the left and the right regard compromise as capitulation, and in the last year we have seen demonstration of that as championed by the Tea Party side of the Republican Party.  "Compromise equals capitulation" characterizes those who hope for a revolution, a process that is inherently destructive and requires a protracted period of rebuilding before there is a foundation for further development and growth.  My choice is evolution, which is inherently constructive because it builds on current and past success.

A recent public opinion poll conducted and published by The Economist and YouGov contains a telling piece of information that speaks to political attitudes about governance.  The poll is from the week of January 7, 2012; it is available for viewing at The Economist Poll Results Archive.

Of the three dozen tables contained in the January 7 poll results, it is Table 5--"Importance of compromise-oriented congressperson"--that has caught my attention.  Here's the question that was asked in the survey:  "If you had to choose, would you rather have a member of Congress who compromises to get things done (or) sticks to their principles, no matter what."  (The emphasis on certain words is mine.)

Democrats responded in this way:  75% prefer compromise, the remainder choose the alternative.

Republicans responded this way:  63% choose unequivocally sticking to principles, with the remaining 37% choosing compromise.

Independents go for compromise by 63%, compared to 37% who would want the congressperson to stick to principles.

Count me among the 75% of Democrats, 37% of Republicans and 63% of Independents who want government to be a product of ideas that seek to gain support from as broad a spectrum of people as possible.

Governance through compromise is not a new idea; it's been around for thousands of years.  In this country, the idea of governance through compromise started with the Declaration of Independence.  That landmark document is the product of the work and ideas of dozens of representatives from the thirteen British-American colonies, each of whom started out with different ideas on how much they wanted to tweak the noses of Parliament and King.

The U.S. Constitution is a product of extensive compromising.  Some of the compromises that were put into the Constitution were ugly, such as the "three fifths" rule of apportionment and the support for slavery.  Even the construction of the Senate as being composed of two Senators from each state was a compromise to gain support for ratification from the small states of the time.

The United States started out with the fundamental concept that compromise in government leads to good governance.

Every example of good governance in this country's history--whether at the national, state or local level--has been the result of some type of compromise.  That governing approach has worked well for us for almost two and a half centuries; it will continue to work well so long as we support it.  As voters, we ought to know our history--not just recent history, but our entire history.

And we need to have appreciation for our future history, too, because we are creating some of it with our voting this year.  The candidates and their campaign operatives read these poll and survey results, too.  Those candidates who are elected in 2012 will be in office for two or four or six years, and the way that they conduct themselves during that time will be influenced by their perceptions of why people voted for them.

This year's Democratic candidates know that if they are elected to office it will be by a majority that wants them to be open to compromise.  The Republican candidates, by and large, will have no such guidance from their electoral majorities.  For proof of this we need look no further than to recall the uncompromising antics of the freshman Republicans installed into the House of Representatives last year.  The reward for a year of poor governance is new lows in the public's opinion ratings of Congress.

Good governance requires the ability on the part of those making the governing decisions to be able to compromise with office-holders of other political persuasions.  The best of good governance occurs when the ability to compromise comes from both sides of the aisle.

Maybe someday there will be another poll asking about the desire to compromise, and perhaps the numbers will be different.  I hope that next poll will show that the great majority of Republicans will support compromise in government, too, along with the majorities of Democrats and Independents.  Perhaps at that point I will be drawn into the Republican Party.  It's a long shot, but anything is possible.

For now, I am a Democrat, because I believe that the attitudes and positions of the Democratic Party do the best job of supporting good governance.  A willingness to compromise in doing the government's work is a big part of good governance.  Our nation's history  and even its existence is proof of that statement.