Governing through mutual respect and judicious compromise

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 8, 2012 5:47 p.m.


    "Lets focus on solving problems..."

    The problem is not so much in solving... the problem is in identifying problems to be solved. For example, how do you solve the problem of gay marriage or abortion? These two issues (among others) are what divides the parties.

    Of course Christie and Obama 'came together' ... Obama, because he holds the cash (FEMA) to solve problems from the storm and Christie because his state needs federal help.

    "Christie demonstrated statesmanship..."

    Naw. Walking around with Obama with your tail between your legs is not what I'd call statesmanship. I'd call it grovelling. Such conduct does not make for a good future presidential candidate.


    "...President Obama has exhibited a bipartisan spirit since he came into office. Even the healthcare law for which he has been vilified incorporated elements previously supported by the opposition and did not include a single payer (government) system."

    What? You must-a been dreaming. There was zero compromise by Obama's party. The Repubs were entirely shut out of the process.

    As for the single payer system... that's step two of the Obamacare process. We just haven't been informed of it yet.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 6, 2012 9:32 a.m.

    Amazing that you concluded I am a liberal. You certainly are liberal (pun intended) in your use of words like “always” and “never” and yes you missed my point entirely (which was about the Civil War). The point is that the inability to compromise inevitably leads to conflict and war. That outcome may be at times necessary (like the Civil War), but it becomes far more likely in a highly polarized environment of us (the good guys) and them (the evil ones that we should NEVER compromise with).

    And before you list all the reasons why you are right and pragmatists, moderates, liberals, etc. are wrong, please remember that it was the pious Southern slave owners who were the most intractable in their (biblically supported) views on slavery.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 5, 2012 8:19 p.m.

    Re: "When we choose to take one side . . . a broad brush judicious compromise is not possible."

    Most political compromises -- like those we've made over the years on budget and freedom issues with liberals -- while they may be broad, they're certainly NOT judicious.

    The existential costs to our democracy of compromises, broad or narrow, with those that hold re-election and political expedience in higher esteem than the National interest, will nearly always be too high.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Nov. 5, 2012 7:17 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal -

    When we choose to take one side and paint the other side with a broad brush judicious compromise is not possible. There are Democrats who want to see progress too just as there are Republicans that can't get their head out of "politics first, second and always".

    No party has a corner on virtue and honor. Let's find those statesmen who want the best for our nation no matter what side of the isle they are on and support them.

    "The slavery compromise was seen, even at the time, as a catastrophe, by most of our greatest thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson -- a slave owner, himself."

    As wrong as slavery was, our founding fathers were wise not to bite off more than the current culture could chew. They decided that to form a nation the question of slavery could not be decided then, but would have to be left for a future time, otherwise there may not be a nation.

    And - I think Tyler D meant the Civil War, not the Constitutional Convention. In the Civil War we did not compromise - in the end - with the South on slavery.

    It has nothing to do with "moral bankruptcy".

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 5, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    Re: ". . . only one time in our history did we not compromise on a major, pressing issue. And that issue (slavery) was a total no-brainer."

    Liberals are fond of attempting to turn history on its head -- slavery in the Constitution WAS, of course, a compromise. You know, all that 3/5 of person, etc.

    The slavery compromise was seen, even at the time, as a catastrophe, by most of our greatest thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson -- a slave owner, himself.

    Today's liberals have come to see compromise -- tax-funded vote buying -- as their entitlement, an end in itself. But, it NEVER amounts to more than a buy-off of whatever constituency they're currently trying to herd back into their big tent.

    Compromise with today's liberals is as pernicious to the Nation, as was compromise with yesteryear's slave owners. And, because of the damage it wreaks on American decency, democracy, and prosperity -- just as morally bankrupt.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Nov. 5, 2012 5:00 p.m.

    Wow! Compromise, the founding principle of our nation, what a novel concept! I am all for the marketplace of ideas, but people should remember that only one time in our history did we not compromise on a major, pressing issue. And that issue (slavery) was a total no-brainer.

    We will only get smart, effective solutions when we have had our fill with this current crop of uncompromising pledge signers and start electing grownups again. By the way, when did signing a pledge OTHER then the oath of office become a virtue?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 5, 2012 5:11 a.m.

    Re: "Governing through mutual respect and judicious compromise"

    Respect -- of course.

    But, compromise with vote-buying liberals? It'll destroy us.

    Most Americans know what needs to be done to return America to greatness -- a return to morality and decency, and a meaningful reduction in the size of a bloated, unaccountable, ineffective, inefficient government.

    Even Democrats, in unguarded moments, admit as much.

    But their deranged "big tent" political strategy requires frequent deals with the devil, and can produce only unstable, demanding, unreasonable constituencies.

    Attempts at compromise with the modern Democrat establishment require such massive buy-offs of its narcissistic components, they invariably amount to total, abject surrender to one or another nefarious scheme, or moral or financial dimension.

    Sadly, the days of Democrats being able to make decisions in the interest of America are just a distant memory. This renders any compromise with Democrats a compromise of America's interests.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 9:33 p.m.

    The only people who criticize Christie's appreciation for President Obama's help are the people that can't get their heads out of "politics" long enough to realize that the real world is not about "us" verses "them".

    Our constitution never would have been written if it hadn't been for compromise. No-one left that constitutional convention completely satisfied, yet in spite of that we became a nation that has weathered civil war, world wars, assassinations, devastating natural disasters, terrorism and economic down-turns.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Nov. 4, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    Its too bad that New Jersey's Governor should have to explain himself like this or that anyone would criticize his actions in working with the federal government rather than treating it as an opportunity to make political capital. People in these areas are hurting. If we can't pull together in these times what does it say about us as a society?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    this should be published far and wide

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 7:58 a.m.

    Through their interaction, President Obama and Governor Christie put the welfare of the Governor's state and the country first, before political concerns. In doing so, they set a high standard for oher poliicians to follow. Good for them. I hope other politicians will follow suit.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Nov. 4, 2012 7:57 a.m.

    I hope all the Republican Leadership reads this Editorial. Criticism of Governor Christy's bipartisanshship is comming from his own party.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    Impressive editorial, and very true. Whoever wins the presidency will face a very divided nation, which is not at all uncommon in the past 12 years. But the Founding Fathers also had what might have been irreconcilable differences, namely slavery, and yet they were able to compromise to move the nation forward.

    The upcoming seismic budget deal will require similar fortitude. Republicans will have to cede their insistence that taxes never be raised, and Democrats will have to accept unpopular cuts to favorite programs. There's no way around this massive issue, and the nation's future depends on it. It's time for statesmen to swallow their pride, put their political capital on the line, and make things happen.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Nov. 4, 2012 6:04 a.m.

    I have to tip my hat to the DN editorial writers. They managed to write a whole essay about the cooperative effort in New Jersey in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, the willingness of politicians to compromise and work together for the good of the nation and the fact that we are moving out of the devastating economic downturn, without ever mentioning the name of President Obama. Governor Christie's honest assessment came after the president dedicated himself, despite being in the midst of a tight presidential campaign, to the people of New Jersey and to helping Governor Christie get the help he needed for his state's citizens. He personally toured the devastation with the governor and supported him for days, despite past history and the harsh words spoken by the governor. Yes, the president was just doing his job but he did it in exactly the same spirit that this essay suggests.

    Despite what has been claimed, President Obama has exhibited a bipartisan spirit since he came into office. Even the healthcare law for which he has been vilified incorporated elements previously supported by the opposition and did not include a single payer (government) system.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 4, 2012 6:03 a.m.

    I am almost left speechless. This is by far one of the best written political pieces the DN has published this entire political season. I congratulate the DN for rising above the sophomoric sensationalized dribble pushed by much the media.

    Lets focus on solving problems, not winning seats, or if someone is blue or red. Christie demonstrated statesmanship... and if he gets punished by his party because he was more loyal to the people he represents than to his "party", good for him. It shows character and back bone many in office fail to show, in either party.

    Just perhaps he was the right candidate for the Republicans..... maybe we will find out in 4 years.

  • Pat Henry Holladay, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 1:39 a.m.

    "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately", is attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Radical obstructionism in Congress has set our Nation back. We should tolerate no more of it from our so-called "representatives". Hold their feet to the fire. If they can't work with each other, throw the bums out! Even children know you've got to "play well with each other"! But whatever we do on Tuesday, we must be careful not replace an uncompromising incumbent with someone even worse.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 1:27 a.m.

    I could not agree more. It is a sad day when a politician can't say anything positive about their political "enemy" without their "side" shrieking about how traitorous they are. The goal shouldn't be to damage "the other side". The goal should be to work together, COMPROMISE, and get things done -- some of what you want and some of what I want. Because only a spoiled toddler thinks they can get their way 100% of the time. Time for everyone to grow up. And time to stop listening to hate filled commentators who make more money the more riled up they can get you. It started on the right, but I'm seeing it now on the left as well. Why listen to people whose sole job is to make you so mad you feel actual hatred for others?