Thomas Friedman, author and foreign affairs columnist at the New York Times, was fond of describing diplomatic impasses like this: “One side says, ‘I’m weak, how can I compromise?’ The other side says, ‘I’m strong, why should I compromise?’” (Source: From Bierut to Jerusalem) The parties involved often oscillate between the two positions, but ultimately refuse to compromise no matter their successes or failures or the affect their position is having on their population. The result is an incredibly frustrating impasse.
Here’s a “fun” dichotomy you’ll encounter when you hang around political circles long enough:
Policymakers are elected to represent their districts. We all know this. But “representation” means different things to different people. Some say representation means voting in whatever way the majority of their constituents desire. Others say representation means voting for whatever would ultimately be in the best interest of their district, whether this means agreeing or disagreeing with the majority of the populous and making decisions between short-term and long-term interests that might be contradictory. And while most legislators claim to subscribe to one of these philosophies, rarely will you find an individual that doesn’t cross the fence to the other theory of thought at one time or another.
I say all this because I recognize that the policymakers addressing our state’s fiscal crisis represent varying schools of thought and very different constituencies. I don’t expect them to easily solve the massive budget hole, nor would I want them to. With as diverse a population as the state of Michigan holds, debate is key to sound public policy.
But it’s time for a compromise.
We’ve been going at this budget deficit for several years, and to be bluntly honest, the resolution thus far has pretty much gone one way. We’ve had budget cuts and budget cuts and more budget cuts.
And it’s time for a compromise.
That’s what politics is all about. Differing ideologies, conversing and dialoguing and debating each other on behalf of their differing constituencies, ultimately coming to some sort of compromise. Why? Because we represent different people, and as difficult as it is, our collective responsibility is to look out for all of them.
That’s done through compromise.
We’ve done the budget cuts thing, straight up, for five years. It’s time to look seriously at revenue increases.
Submitted by Tiffany Aurora
Filed under: State Budget
