Practical versus moderate or people compromising

 

At first I almost wrote compromised policy, yet doesn’t make the presentation I wanted. This is about public policy and this obsession with people that if Democrats and Republicans get together and either compromise their positions or find a middle ground (moderate) we have better public policy.

I am not saying you cannot achieve strong policy goals through compromise or with a “moderate” bent. I do state that if you look at public policy practically you might create much better public policy.

So many people are trying to find a solution to getting things done in Congress that I think they confuse what you can accomplish by trying too hard to say Congress passes better legislation when the two parties compromise. This can be a fallacy. The nature of compromise in and of itself does not necessarily make something better. It can complete a task or finish a project, yet are you really achieving the best result? I think people have seen so much failure as of late that they are trying to find a route to success without defining what success may look like first.

To me success is what is best for the country as a whole without taking away the freedoms and interests of a minority or groups that do not directly benefit. Yet if you put the general populace first the policy will eventually be beneficial to most if not all. The benefits may not be dispersed equally, however if the results reach the vast majority then you probably have a better policy.

A quick example might be where you lower the taxes on the middle class where they can save more, have money to spend, or able to pay down their personal debt. The wealthy may say what do we receive if the middle class has a tax break and we do not. I use this example because I want to say the phrase trickle up. Instead of relying on big business to pass their tax savings down with all their trumped up logic, the tax break to the general population spreads out and up. Note the word rely on in the above sentence. The whole point of the trickle down theory was that it required the upper echelons to take actions that would filter down to everyone else, such as lower prices or invest in better products to create new jobs, but yet it had to be relied upon by the general populace for the wealthy to share this gain to them. With shifting the tax relief to the general populace they naturally will do one of the three facets listed above. Savings and investments by the general populace creates stability in the economic system, banks benefit because they now have more resources to make loans, the general populace has more confidence in the system and there is a possible reduction in the wealth gap. Less taxes also mean the general populace has more money to spend so businesses benefit by increased revenues. And finally if the general population pays down debt it lessens stress on the economy. Banks and lenders such as mortgages are writing off less bad debt. There cash flow increases and they can loan more money as needed into the economy and can offer more competitive rates to a larger audience.

This example is not perfect, but hopefully can give a snapshot of the difference one policy change can make. The policy though is not based on Democrats and Republicans compromising on tax policy, or some moderate idea, but trying to find the most practical tax policy for the whole country. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and some groups will try to shoot down the logic. Their arguments though are based on where they fall into the economic spectrum. Large corporations see the smallest immediate gain, yet if the whole economy is strong they benefit whether they will publicly admit it or not. Wall Street may not like it because the investment money is coming to them in slow waves as the general populace makes slow incremental increases to their savings, 401ks other investments etc. Wall Street has less of their own money to double down on their own wealth, hence increasing the wealth gap. Yet in the long run, a more practical policy is not based on either a conservative or liberal bias, but more towards the larger beneficial aspect.

And some may say since you are lowering taxes this is a conservative policy. I ask are you sure.

One difference to highlight is offering a practical policy can be compromised a bit to take into account factors not originally considered versus a policy that is compromised by one side trying to accommodate another side. Or they change the goal or initiative and the policy becomes watered down to appease groups trying to achieve a political win. It is the latter that I see many of today’s advocators of compromise trying to achieve. They may think compromise will get us better policy because of the extremes hijacking policy, however are they doing a litmus test of who actually benefits once they make a compromise. Or maybe in today’s world they think of a compromise they wish happened. I do have to admit not much is being done right now.

And many liberals will say the far right are the ones hijacking public policy right now and they are correct, however if you look closely though there are groups on the far left trying to create their own goals that will not benefit the general populace. They are just quieter in their public discourse so if you dig deep enough into what each side is saying a person may find the distinction. I just hope I made it clear. Neither side wants to admit that their ideas lack in merit, yet you have to step back and again do a litmus test to determine exactly who benefits.

And in researching what is needed versus being preoccupied that it needs to have a liberal or conservative bias, you can write, produce and evaluate better policy from the beginning. And of course as an independent conservative, even my public policy I discuss in my posts starts with a conservative frame, yet that does not mean it can be adjusted through analysis and evaluation to be changed to a more suitable practical end result. Policy can be liberal or conservative, it shouldn’t be driven by it has to be liberal or conservative to appease the majority of the moment. I have always said sometimes we need liberal policies and sometimes we need conservative policies. The moment should be a more important driver of the policy needed, not the politics.

And so the next step is how do we step away from the need to rationalize our compromises and step into policy writing to achieve what is truly needed.

And the irony of this post is I am trying to reach out to a moderate audience. Ha ha ha. Okay not really a moderate audience, but to the vast majority of the country who by nature are generally moderate in their views.