The Verdict of History

Congressional "deals" and "compromises" are almost always misjudged in the immediate aftermath. Rhetoric from all sides, some wishing to claim victory, some wishing to inflame a "base," lead to poor assessments of the actual results. A better guide is history.

One clear lesson of history is that ANY deal/compromise in which one side gives up something tangible for something unenforceable loses. Consider the Compromise of 1850: the North got something tangible, California as a state; the South, a promise. The South's promise was that the Fugitive Slave Act would be enforced, and that northerners would help enforce it.

Wrong. There was never any way to make the North live up to its part of the bargain. Meanwhile, the anti-slave forces advanced their objectives by adding yet another free state to the Union. (As an unintended consequence, as well, Harriet Beecher Stowe published "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as a direct attack on the Fugitive Slave Law, generating far more anti-slave/pro-abolition feeling than had ever existed in the past.)

Clear winner? The North, who got something tangible for a "principle" that the South could seize runaway slaves.

How about the 1991 budget "deal" involving Pres. George H. W. Bush? According to the Democrats, deficits were spinning out of control. They agreed to higher taxes in return for a promise of future budget cuts. Bush broke his "read my lips" pledge, the Dems got their tax hikes, but never got around to cutting the budget. Breaking his "lips" pledge did more to unseat Bush than anything else that happened in the campaign.

How about some foreign policy "compromises?" In 1919, Pres. Woodrow Wilson went to Versailles with his "14 Points"---a laundry list of "principles" such as "national self-determination," "freedom of the seas," and so on. The British and French arrived seeking something quite different, and tangible: the destruction of the German Army and Navy. Italy came to the conference wanting land. Wilson traded away every tangible part of the agreement for "principles" and "promises," none of which were kept except that the League of Nations was established. Then, in another ironic unintended circumstance, the Senate blocked American participation in the League.

Clear loser? Wilson, who obtained promises in exchange for tangible, concrete actions.

That brings me to the judges. Conservatives are fuming because the Republicans "caved" on the filibuster.

Pretty short-sighted if you ask me. History says we won, and won big. In exchange for real, live judges, the Senate "moderates" (read, "morons") gave up promises not to break a filibuster. (One of those "moderates" is already on record as saying if the Dems try to filibuster he will change his vote and vote for cloture---Graham).

DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND: THE DEMS WILL LIE AND HAVE LIED; THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF KEEPING THEIR WORD, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT IN THE LONG RUN. I look at every "compromise" as though the enemy will break his word. Reagan called it "trust, but verify." What will happen down the line is uncertain, but this much is clear: in the short run, the GOP won, and won big. They got something tangible for smoke, something real for shadows of promises.

My guess is that AFTER the first 6-8 judges are confirmed, and a USSC nomination is made, the Dems will again threaten filibuster, and two or three of the so-called "moderates" will defect and vote cloture, and it's another win.

The evidence of history is against with the Republicans, however vascillating they may be.

I like your comparison to the Compromise of 1850. Like it, this compromise is an attempt to paper over genuinely irreconcilable differences.

A big difference is that it won't last 10 years. Probably won't last 10 months, as it will fall apart with the first nomination to the Supremes.

The really big loser in the C of 1850, IMHO, was the South, but for a different reason than you give.

Had the South seceded in 1850, it would have almost certainly won the ensuing war and retained its independence.

In 1850 the North was much less preponderant in manpower, industry and infrastructure than it was in 1860. This is especially true with regard to railroads, the essential element that allowed the Union to keep its troops supplied. The railway net necessary to support the Union effort just didn't exist in 1850.

The anti-slavery movement in the North was also much smaller and less organized in 1850 than in 1860. This means that slavery would have been less at issue in the eyes of foreign governments, like that of the UK, which means they could follow their natural inclination to support the South without getting their own liberals so excited. Had the UK formally recognized or supported the Confederacy, they would have won the war.

As far as it goes, you may be right.

However, demoralizing the pro-life base after a series of slaps at them (Specter, Schiavo, this Compromise, and then ONE DAY LATER, approving stem cell funding) is also likely to produce a very tangible result: the loss of support, the loss of money, the loss of helping hands, and the loss of votes.

Republicans keep pouring cynical acid on the foundational supports of their majority. They do it because they think that pro-lifers are like Blacks to the Democrats: "Where else will they go?"

This is a fundamental miscalculation, and the results are likely to be quite tangible.

The GOP doesn't have much time.
President Bush has to veto this stem cell bill to shore up his own pro-life credentials.
The three agreed upon judges need to be rammed through, and then the Republicans need to raise the other seven and re-initiate the nuclear sequence. There cannot be any backing away from that.
When the time comes, it would be better for the GOP to go nuclear and LOSE, so that the faithful and faithless Republicans would be clearly identified.

If the Republicans don't pull out of this jam dive they've put themselves in, they're going to be facing a third party running on a pure pro-life Christian line. Unlike Perot's flash in the pan, a pro-life Christian party won't go away. If the pro-lifers feel betrayed enough by the Republicans, they are not going to come back.

Republicans have got to change course quickly to avoid very tangible disaster. The Judges is the battleground. Pro-lifers are not going to move past the issue of judges and keep their powder dry for some future fight. The Judiciary IS the fight - it's the only way to curtail abortion.

If the Republicans don't win on the judiciary, they will lose the pro-life base.
If the Republicans look too much like appeasers on the judiciary, even if they make tactical gains they will still look faithless to the pro-life base and they may still lose it.

"May"?
Too weak a word.
They ARE losing it, right now. They need to take BOLD action to shore up the dyke and stop the hemorrhage.

So, what was their first act after the compromise on judges?

Why, passing STEM CELL FUNDING.

Do Republicans really think that pro-lifers are so blind and stupid not to see this? The timing is as bad as you could get.

I agree with your analysis principles but not their application. The D's did get something very tangible. The fact that they postponed a fight they were about to lose is not tangible. But the political ammunition they got is invaluable.

The spineless seven wouldn't support the Byrd option when they didn't have an agreement not to with their signature on it. All the limitations and conditions on it will be forgotten, the sound bite will be, and the people will believe, "They said they wouldn't!" For the spineless seven to flip would cost them personally and heavily. They will never do it, not at their own political expense. And even worse, they agreed with the obstructionists put at least some R's on record as agreeing that the filibuster of judges is legitimate interpretation of the Constittion. Big big mistake. And it was Frist's. This should have been smacked down as soon as the D's started this unConstitutional chicanery.

Very Interesting historical perspective!

LS:

...One clear lesson of history is that ANY deal/compromise in which one side gives up something tangible for something unenforceable loses.
....I look at every "compromise" as though the enemy will break his word.
....History says we won, and won big. In exchange for real, live judges, the Senate "moderates" (read, "morons") gave up promises not to break a filibuster. (One of those "moderates" is already on record as saying if the Dems try to filibuster he will change his vote and vote for cloture---Graham). .... What will happen down the line is uncertain, but this much is clear: in the short run, the GOP won, and won big. They got something tangible for smoke, something real for shadows of promises.
My guess is that AFTER the first 6-8 judges are confirmed, and a USSC nomination is made, the Dems will again threaten filibuster, and two or three of the so-called "moderates" will defect and vote cloture, and it's another win.
The evidence of history is against with the Republicans, however vacillating they may be.

CatoRenasci: (post 7 )

Ceterus Paribus I would agree with you. However, with the intense leftist media spin in all the national press and networks, I think what you are considering intangible -- the promise -- will be make virtually tangible to our chagrin and dismay. I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but the Republicans' track record of vacillation suggests otherwise.

BTW, don't forget to buy LS's excellent history book: A Patriot's History of the United States : From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.

Besides this one, I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

I concur with your conclusion but respectfully disagree with the reasoning that got you there. I view the agreement as a tactical draw but a strategic victory. The Republicans gave up nothing really and we got three judges. The Democrats have now made a promise not to filibuster except under "extraordinary" circumstances. Most people in this forum and on the right in general seem to feel that the correct course was to crush the Democrats utterly by forcing the vote to invoke the so called nuclear option. Although certainly an available option, I feel it should be a last resort.
One of the principal reasons that I feel the compromise agreement was a good thing, is that it did not force one half of our country's legislature into a situation where there would be something very close to civil war as a result. Miscalculation and a failure to take seriously ones opponent is often the cause for the collapse of negotiation and the result of open conflict. I think a large number of Democrats really felt that the Republicans would not go through with the nuclear option. They were dead wrong. I am quite certain it would have happened if they had not ceased to abuse the ancient privilege (not right) of the filibuster. I am also certain that the Republicans had the votes to pull it off. But the Democrats do not have a monopoly on selective reasoning.
Republicans also misjudged the resolve of Democrats. If we had gone through with this, there is no doubt in my mind that the Senate would have ground to a halt, probably until the next election. Democrats regarded the removal of the filibuster as a declaration of war. It would have been a complete disaster for the country. Nothing of any importance would have been accomplished because the Democrats would have fought every single item (except by their own words, matters involving national security) tooth and nail. We would have gotten our judges to be sure. But at what price for our country?
The other price paid would have been at the polls. Does anyone think that this would not have galvanized the political left in a way that nothing else could have? They would have campaigned next year on one issue. I can see it now. "Stop George W Bush and his FASCIST JUDGES!" I think they would have carried a significant part of the political center with them. The whole thing really would have looked like a massive power grab and it would have been a PR disaster. Instead we got substantially what we wanted and we gave up nothing of consequence.
Finally I do not share the views of so many that the agreement will not be kept. Its wording is deliberately vague and very un-legal like. This agreement is in one sense more binding than a contract. It is, if I may use an archaic term, a “gentlemen’s agreement.” Most of those who signed it are on good personal terms with one another. They understand that their personal honor is at stake. Even if they have no desire to keep their word and care nothing for their honor, returning to the filibuster has been made politically much more difficult. The American people will look very unfavorably on the first side to try to back out of this agreement. And since we made no real commitments other than to preserve the filibuster as long as its not abused, that leaves the ball squarely in the Democrats court.
One of the things which I find intensely disturbing is the rhetoric emanating from both sides in this and most other political debates. When did the Democrats become "the enemy." When did the word "compromise" become a swear word? When did the term "moderate" become a pejorative or a slur? Democrats, wrong though they are on most issues, are not the "the enemy." They are our fellow countrymen. This pronounced lack of temperance and moderation is the greatest danger to our cause.
Those who belittle negotiation (unless it results in the abject surrender of the other side) are living in a fantasy world. It is that kind of mentality, far more often than the willingness to compromise which has lead to wars over the years. To be sure there have been negotiations which have failed or were based on a misguided fear of standing up for right. But that is the exception not the rule. One of our former presidents once said “we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.” I am satisfied that this deal has substantially accomplished what we wanted and we have given yielded nothing that touches on either principal or honor. This deal was a victory for the Republicans and I think, for the country as a whole.

Had the South seceded in 1850, it would have almost certainly won the ensuing war and retained its independence.

I'm not sure that this would be so. At the tactical-level the big change from 1850 to 1860 was the introduction of the rifled musket. This increased the advantage of the defender over the attacker. In close terrain concealed riflemen often outranged their opponent's artillery (remember arty in those days was a direct fire weapon only, and so it was emplaced out in the open for all to see, and shoot at.) The Union advantage in artillery would have been even more pronounced had their opponents had few/no rifled muskets.

You cite the railroad network as another factor, and you have a point. Several campaigns could not have been fought without the ability to shuttle troops between theaters. I suspect that the lack of railroads in 1850 would have meant much smaller scale fighting in the Western Theater. Who would have cared about Chattanoga were it not for the Railroads? Atlanta?

It's an interesting debate.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.