Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The weakness of "Fairness."

Interesting story on radio today. It seems that a husband and wife each wanted the last of a delicious dessert. The husband immediately told his wife "I want it all."

His wife responded "Let's each take half."

Her husband responded "We'll compromise. I want 100%, you want 50%, so a fair compromise is in the middle. I'll get 75% and you get 25%.

Liberals are the wife and conservatives are the husband. Notice that the wife started from the assumption that there should be a fair distribution of the dessert. The Husband used that assumption as the starting place to get as close to everything as possible. He used her value of fairness as a weapon against her.

We are already hearing Democrats start the advice and consent process on John Roberts by being fair to him as a human being and a nominee. Bilmon points out that Harry Reid stated on the floor of the Senate:

"John Roberts has had an impressive legal career. Both in government and in private practice, he has been a zealous and often successful advocate for his clients. He has argued many cases before the Supreme Court and is respected for his legal skills. By all accounts he is a very nice man."
  • Harry Reid started with an assumption of fairness. Reid will be 'rolled.'


Bilmon has a series of discussions on this process.

In his discussions Bilmon explains the "Fairness Disease" with examples. Then he points the way to the politics of the future.

Jeralyn at Talk Left (see post ) will not like it, and neither will a lot of Democrats and Progressives. Sad. They are going to have to decide which is the greater priority - winning elections or being "nice guys."

The conservatives made their decision long ago. That's why there are not many remaining "nice Guy" Republicans, why Democrats keep losing 'must-win elections,' and why the Republicans support Karl Rove so rabidly that they ignore his treason.



This discussion should be related to my previous posts on the reasons Democrats have been losing elections.
  • In Why do Republicans win elections? I discuss the nationwide well-funded and unified political organization if the conservative Republican party. The Democrats have nothing to match it at present.

  • In Why are conservatives getting elected over progressives? I discuss how the conservatives provide issues, platforms and talking points for a relatively unified conservative media message. One effect has been to shift the American public opinion towards right-wing pro-corporation opinions.

  • In Republicans have a permanent lock on national elections I briefly discuss the way the Republicans have taken advantage of the structure of the Constitutional provisions that allow groups with minority opinions to override more politically popular view.



[Addendum - 07-21-2005 12:05 PM] DavidNYC has an excellent dKos diary quoting and discussing Billmon's writings on how the Democrats should deal with the Roberts nomination.

This is exactly the kind of discussion Democrats need to be having. I focused above on the weakness of fairness as an attitude that has consistently led to losing must-win elections. Both Bilmon and DavidNYC provide a much broader discussion of alternative open to Democrats in order to remain competitive in American politics.

Of course, there is another option. Democrats can refuse to change, provide a high-minded example of how people should treat each other, and expect the Republicans to grow up and emulate the adults. Don't worry. I'll try to avoid writing such silly fantasies in the future.

No comments: