Tag: political 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


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