Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

An excellent prediction

... from Atrios

The Compromise Shuffle

Here's, roughly, how it works.

Democrats loudly proclaim their willingness to negotiate and compromise, even after they've already compromised with themselves. The Bush administration loudly proclaims its unwillingness to do so.

Broderesque columnists loudly wail about the fact that both sides are unwilling to sit down over tea and negotiate and compromise.

Republicans sneak in with what they call a "compromise" which, magically, will be exactly what Bush wants, and won't involve actually compromising with the people who run Congress.

Broderesque columnists will loudly praise the non-compromise compromise put forward by the Republican party and the Bush administration.

We've been here many times before.
Anyone want to bet that he's wrong?


Dr. Strangelove said...

Could you define Broderesque, please? I'm not familiar with the term, and my attempts to ferret out a definition on the web were not successful.

If I understand the post, I think Atrios is wrong. I suspect the Democrats will just back down.

USwest said...

Broderesque: As in David Broder who was the coloumnist for Washington Post and others, has written several books, is considered the gold standard of political journalism.(

Raised By Republicans said...

Backing down is essentially what Atrios is predicting.

I think the Democrats won't back down unless we're talking about a policy area in which the President can effectively act unilaterally (like keeping troops in Iraq).

On matters such as the DOJ scandal etc, you'll Congress flex its muscle.

Dr. Strangelove said...

USWest: forgive me, but could you please explain further? I found the reference to David Broder, but I do not know what aspect of Broder's writings "Broderesque" refers to. (From the context, I do not think "gold standard" quality is what "Broderesque" implies.)

USWest said...

Broder is generally a centrist. However, I think Bell Curve coined the term to refer to pundits who are unhappy regardless of what happens. They are reasonable pundits who see both sides of a debate, rarely come out strongly for any one side and who always call for an end to partisanship, as if that is really how work gets done.

Bell Curve is free to correct me if I am wrong.

Dr. Strangelove said...

Bell Curve was quoting Atrios, and I have found the term elsewhere... alas, I have been unable to find enough context to figure out what it means... The centrism is certainly a part of it, for sure, though.

Anonymous said...

It's not just centrism --- it's faux-centrism. It's seeking a center where none exists, because the center is this lofty standard that all politicians should aspire to.

Take the current stand-off. Broder's position is that we should get out of Iraq. But he refuses to side with the Democrats, saying that some compromise should be sought with Bush. Of course, he might as well ask for a million dollars on a unicorn. Therefore, it's meaningless punditry. The only two options are, at this point, to side with the Democrats or to side with Bush. To do neither and to seek some "third way" is cowardly and pointless.

- BC

Raised By Republicans said...

From what I've seen on Daily Kos (where Atrios is often posted), the concept goes beyond fake cetrism. It's bending over backwards to assign equal blame and equal responsibility to both Republicans and Democrats regardless of the facts of the situation. The logic seems to be, "there are 2 parties so they must each share 50% of the blame, right?"

At best, it's a political world view based on a lazy moral equivalency.

At worst it is disengenuous and implicitly pro-Republican. For example, many people who have this "Broderesque" quality like to criticize the Democrats for being spineless. But when the Democrats push for something they are accused being needlessly partisan and are encouraged to "compromise" with the Republicans who are being intransigent (the fight over the DOJ firings and related documents is an example). Both accusations appear non-partisan but both fit nicely with the Republican talking points.

Dr. Strangelove said...

Thanks to everyone for helping increase my political vocabulary.