Tag: Compromise

Government Overreach Increases Regardless of Party

Nickolas Roberson | United States

As of now, the Democrats control the House, while the Republicans control the Senate. With both parties in power, political gridlock will only increase. However, the legislation these parties do pass will only increase the already gluttonous influence and power of the United States government. Clearly, this increased government overreach is detrimental to citizens.

For over a hundred years, the government has been willing to violate our natural rights and liberties. For example, we have lawmakers limiting our 2nd Amendment rights with the bump stock ban and warrantless surveillance of citizens. With established political gridlock growing, these infringements will only increase in frequency.

Bipartisan Compromise

Why? In order for the established political parties to gain “true progress”, they must come to agreements and compromises and create bipartisan deals that work for both sides of the aisle. With their vastly varying beliefs, these parties will need to find common ground. After all, without this, nothing would get done in Washington. 

To the average citizen, this may sound like a good thing. Yes, the wheels of politics are able to move once again. However, they are by no means moving in a positive direction; they are instead furthering government overreach. Both parties want to ensure that they get what they want, no matter the monetary cost.

A Vehicle for Government Overreach

For example, after having control of the House for just two months, members of the Democratic party have already proposed a bill to eliminate the Electoral College. Additionally, Democrats proposed a bill that would criminalize the private sale of firearms, a clear violation of our 2nd Amendment right. Due to a Republican-controlled Senate, these bills will most likely not pass.

However, if they propose similar bills that contain legislation pertaining to both parties’ agendas, government overreach will continue. For instance, a bill may set aside tax dollars to fund the border wall, but also provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to American citizens. Both parties fulfill their wants in this situation, pushing them to fulfill more extreme legislature that fits in their agendas. Thus, an ever-growing spiral of increasing government overreach and power will form. Our rights are at risk; compromise is not always beneficial.

71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source


The Hidden Tyranny of Bipartisanship

By Jack Parkos | United States

Amidst the 2016 general election and the 2018 midterms, the word “bipartisan” was thrown around quite a bit. This occurred as people called for unity of Democrats and Republicans during times of heated political discourse. Many people voted for candidates who they deemed more likely to “reach across the aisle”.  People assume that bipartisanship will lead to the better. But this is not the case, especially if one has liberty in mind.

Many poor bills, military conflicts, and terrible actions have come from Democrats and Republicans working together. Nobody seems to be concerned that these bills are bad, rather they are happy that enemies are becoming friends. But does working together make something inherently good? Two rivals coming together to work on something may seem good-but it indeed depends on what is being done. The so-called “moderates” in politics will just be happy a bill is bipartisan, not caring if it violates the constitution or our liberties.

As stated before many horrid policies have hurt the nation in the people’s liberties but have thus been labeled as a “victory” somehow. According to this logic, harming people is okay as long as the initiator is being open-minded to working with others. This is absurd logic. Tyranny is tyranny, no matter who it’s from. Now, one may argue these bills have been for the better. This is not the case, these bills were not in the name of liberty. These policies have been authoritarian in nature and harmed the country.

The Creation of the United Nations

Prior to the 1950s, the Republican party was one of isolationism. Senator Arthur Vandenberg changed the party from isolationism to internationalism. Internationalism was a position held by the democratic party, especially with Woodrow Wilson’s globalism in the 1910s. Nonetheless, Vandenberg encouraged bipartisan support for the Truman Doctrine, NATO, and many more internationalist policies. What has been the result of such action? The United States no longer has a party of isolationists. Neither Democrats nor Republicans support this. Both believe in global institutions, war, and interventionism. This has been horrid for the nation. When Trump even spoke of leaving NATO and the UN, both parties thought him crazy. But this is what the Founders supported. They never would have wanted the U.S. under control of an international “super government” and quite frankly, we shouldn’t.

No Child Left Behind

The creation of Common Core was done with bipartisan support. This bill has been awful for children and puts education under central authority. No Child Left Behind is awful for parents, teachers, and students. Both parties support such disaster.

The War on Poverty

The War on Poverty was a series of programs set to fight poverty. Though initiated by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, it gained bipartisan support. One would think the GOP would oppose expanding welfare programs, but this was not the case. Republicans did, in fact, support many programs in the War on Poverty. This has resulted in a massive welfare state and-as Thomas Sowell puts it “changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life”.

Middle Eastern Intervention

Following on the idea of internationalism, the constant warfare in the Middle East gained bi-partisan support. While having strong neoconservative support, many Democrats also supported the bloody wars. Remember “peaceful” Obama? He dropped over 26,000 bombs a year in the Middle East during his presidency. He only continued the awful wars Bush started. Many other Democrats have also become hawkish on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton especially was especially a hawk. Many people thought her opponent Trump was a crazy war fanatic and that she was for peace, yet a look into her time as Secretary of State would show otherwise. There really aren’t many true pro-peace politicians anymore.


Both parties have supported bloody wars and both parties supported disastrous economic programs. It is time to stop assuming bills to be good because it’s bi-partisan. It is time to stop assuming it is good when both parties work together. People say we need more bipartisanship in this country, maybe we need more partisanship. Maybe Republicans need to start actually supporting small government and free markets, and go back to isolationism. One must wonder if, had Republicans been more partisan, would we be better off and with more liberty?

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Democrats’ and Republicans’ Morals Prevent Compromise

By Max Bibeau | United States

As a species, humans are genetically predisposed to experience a negative reaction when they perceive something going on that is considered “unfair,” even if it doesn’t impact them directly. This makes evolutionary sense, as an unfair action, such as working with others to gather food and then not sharing the product, would bring the whole group down. This, of course, reduces chances of survival for each person in the group.

It would then appear logical for early humans to refuse to work with the individual who committed the unfair action in the future. They may even go so far as to punish him for his actions. Even in modern society, these genes linger. Humans experience an extremely passionate reaction when they detect unfair actions in their society.

What’s Unfair and What Isn’t?

Applying this to politics, it makes sense how infuriated individuals get when they see an unfair action. For example, there has been widespread Democratic outrage at Trump’s recent Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which drastically slashed taxes for the upper class. Similarly, since Obamacare’s enactment in 2010, Republicans have been fighting against it, commenting on its unfair premises.

So all humans can agree – we hate unfair actions. But what Jonathan Haidt examines in his insightful book The Righteous Mind, is why individuals of different political leanings have such drastically different ideas on the concept of “fair.” He boils it down to two essential stances: equality and proportionality.

Democrats’ and Republicans’ Morals

Democrats, he describes, see fairness as equal to equality. Generally, he is referring to equality of rights, which is why Democrats and liberals are often much more active in fights for civil rights and human rights than conservatives. However, he also recognizes that many Democrats also advocate for equality of outcome. This explains the liberal goals of higher taxes for the rich and more public services among others.

In stark contrast to the Democrats, Haidt explores the Republican idea of fairness: proportionality. This concept, which revolves around equity theory, holds simply that people deserve what they work for. If someone does little to no work, Republicans ask, why do they deserve money from other hard working Americans? This aptly explains common Republican principles such as lowering taxes, ending entitlements, and decreasing regulations.

Haidt’s moral foundations theory, popularized in his 2012 book, explains this difference. Liberals rely on the care/harm foundation much more heavily than conservatives. As a result, they tend to neglect the fairness/proportionality foundation that conservatives treasure.

A Bad Day for Compromise

For this simple reason, Democrats and Republicans may never find compromise. The two groups simply have extremely different views on the concept of “fair.” The two interpretations, equality and proportionality, are radically different, and the interpretation that one follows depends heavily on which moral foundations are strong within a person.

This explains why many Republicans are stumped as to how Democrats believe they have a right to someone else’s hard earned money. It also explains why Democrats often think Republicans have such little care for their fellow human beings.

Politics now are extremely partisan, and many wonder why Congress is never able to find common ground. The simple but unfortunate answer may be that Republicans and Democrats have drastically different concepts of morality. Therefore, they share completely different goals when it comes to crafting policy.

Using Haidt’s theory, we can also uncover why classic Republican arguments are ineffective in persuading Democrats, and vice versa. Republicans naturally appeal to the moral foundations that are important to them, and Democrats do the exact same thing. So, when a Republican attempts to make an argument in favor of proportionality to a Democrat, it almost always fails – because that’s not the Democrat’s primary concern.

Using Moral Foundations to Win

To be successful in persuading a Democrat, the Republican must utilize their moral foundations, specifically the care/harm foundation. A Democrat will be much more likely, psychologically, to respond to an argument that revolves around minimizing harm than an argument that attempts to promote fairness through proportionality.

Thus, we can see how the simple definition of “fair” is so radically different between the parties, and why that causes so many problems when it comes to creating and passing policy in America. Different people have fundamentally different moral pillars that they rely on. The current American political gridlock may be hardwired within us, and will remain unresolved unless the different parties learn how to appeal to the others’ sense of morality instead of their own.

Obtain awesome merchandise and help 71 Republic end the corporate duopoly by donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Compromise: Destroyer of America

By John Keller | USA

Compromise. The word elates many when brought up talking about Congress; but is it truly great? If the compromise on DACA and the border wall goes through it will be detrimental to the United States economy and the American taxpayer. Every year the DACA program costs a total of $54.5 billion a year. If Trump gets the border wall he campaigned on, it would cost America an estimated $70 billion initially, with a further $150 million a year indefinitely.

By 2020, at the time of the presidential election, this compromise will cost the American taxpayers nearly $234,000,000,000. The current yearly budget has a nearly $700 billion deficit, and this program will increase the deficit by almost 34% yearly. Over ten years, this compromise will add $616.5 billion to the debt. DACA alone will cost 545 billion over ten years, while the wall is expected to cost 71.5 billion over ten years.

The issue is the increased spending with this compromise is coupled with the recent tax cuts in the Trump Administration. It doesn’t take a genius to realize cutting revenue and raising expenditure, while already spending more than revenue allows, will increase the debt.

While tax cuts are good for the individual, this compromise will be one to further the debt. Senator Rand Paul, when speaking on the Senate floor about the most recent budget said that “We’re going to add $9.7 trillion in ten years.” What will this do to help? Not a thing. In fact, it means that by 2028 the U.S. debt will exceed 30 trillion dollars.

It is clear that increased spending is going to be bad for the American Republic. It is an economic maxim that that once debt exceeds 100% GDP that bankruptcy is on the verge. With the debt exceeding 20 trillion, this maxim could soon become reality for America as the GDP in 2016 was $18.57 trillion.

So how can we eliminate the debt? How do we stop this spiral downwards? We must stop compromise. Compromise has long been seen as good but it is the reason America faces financial collapse. Congress needs to have long debates on what programs they are going to fund because funding every program is bankrupting this nation and the American taxpayer.

The further polarization of parties makes this issue especially difficult. By being polarized, the only time Congress accomplishes anything is through compromise – which is making the American voter applaud compromise.

Where has compromise got us throughout history? Constant compromise has been leading to our debt issue. The parties agreed that the Soviet Union was the greatest threat in the Cold War, so in order to get funding for the Cold War, they had to compromise on various issues: welfare reform, immigration reform, notably the amnesty during the Reagan Administration, and as well as advancement towards improving national education. Well, all reforms are arguably necessary, it doesn’t change the fact that it added more spending for the American taxpayer.

When the USSR fell in 1991, U.S. military spending did not fall with it. Why? Because of compromise. The parties compromised that if they got reform in education, welfare, immigration, and more that they would also fund the military. As a result, the debt grew and change was no longer possible. If we do not eliminate compromise, liberties will always be trampled, the debt will always grow, and America will never prosperous.