WHEN POLITICS WORKED

"More than any other event in recent times, the Social Security compromise demonstrated that there is a political center in America that can govern for the benefit of the country even when there are extremely difficult problems to be faced and strongly held differences of opinions about solutions."
(emphasis mine)
Chris Matthews
Tip and The Gipper: When Politics Worked
Simon and Schuster  2013
p. 250

Ray tells people that I shook the bed laughing so hard at Barbara Johnson's book, "Stick A Geranium In Your Hat."

I knew Mom would enjoy the book, too. She had a fully functioning sense of humor and a contagious laugh.

"When does it get funny?" she asked.

Whoa! I didn't see that coming.

I feel a bit the same way about, "Tip and the Gipper." When politics worked? I was two thirds through the book and hadn't seen it yet. I hadn't seen two parties cooperating with one another.

Then I realized, I had twisted expectations. "Working" isn't about pleasantries and good manners. (It's not even about nice language.)

"Working together" is about two people/parties who are absolutely passionate! Passionate about what the problem is and passionate about how to fix it.

"Working together" more resembles a boxing match; each giving and taking blows of blame and insults--sometimes getting bloodied in the process. It's about not giving up, until -- one or both realizes that the wins and losses are about the people they serve. It's about partial wins, trade-offs--compromise!

Social Security (a hot button which will probably never cool down) drew a line of barbed wire between President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neil.

"The Democrats on it [Greenspan Commission]had been pushing for more revenues in the system, while their Republican fellows were insisting on lower payments to the retirees. The result, as the deadline neared, remained a stalemate . . . with the Democrats hoping to make the system of greater value to those who need it most and the Republicans looking for ways to reduce the burden on those paying in." p. 246

BOTH  sides had valid views. Both sides were thinking of the people. Yet both would attack the problem from a different direction.

Knowing that "no compromise" only hurt the people they were trying to help, creative thinking had to take place. O'Neil considered a progressive tax solution (versus his preference of no increased payments).

Delay in cost-of-living increases came to the table.

Higher income brackets paying income on half of their Social Security benefits made an appearance, too.

In the end, "the changes favored low-income Americans and ensured the survival of a strong Social Security system."  p.250

"There was a sense, on a certain level," Chris Matthews writes, "of working together in the service of the country. What's strange is that I can claim such a thing even though the rivalry was often so ferocious."  p.251

I don't know if we need two parties; but we need, at least, two points of view. (Isn't one point of view synonymous with dictatorship?) Neither side may have the whole answer, but between the two, they may come up with a solution better than either side has on its own.

I, apparently, had seen "working together" as one side finally seeing the wisdom of the other side and conceding to it. Perhaps, to me, working together was a kin to good sportsmanship; someone winning and the loser not blaming the umpire or the coach, but just accepting the loss with hopes of better luck next time.

BUT

I'm beginning to see that politics work when you fight for what you believe in--you even fight hard! But, in the end accepting some trade-offs and partial wins for the good of the people--ALL people.

EverGrowing,
Lonnie