Policy Concessions: Good or Bad?

A post on Ezra Klein's blog calls to attention an article written by David Roberts about the avoidance of Democrats from up-or-down votes. Republicans historically fall in line and follow out the orders from the upper echelons of the party. Democrats, on the other hand, don't follow in lockstep and instead, compromise and water down versions of bills.

Roberts argues that Democrats should be proposing maximally effective policies, get the Dems in line behind it, and worry about the politics later. The truth is, regardless of what the Democrats propose (it could even be a continuation of Bush's legacy!) the Republicans will be relentless in their opposition. This in itself is true.

However, as the author of the post writes, not all concessions are made equal. In his words:


But offering a minor concession to a vulnerable senator, who can then go home and say they only voted for the bill after having fought to make it better, doesn't make for a bad trade. Whipping members from ideologically diverse constituencies is tough enough with a leadership willing to broker deals; removing that tool would only make the process more difficult.

I agree here, but I still think that there has to be some sort of middle ground between the two ideas. Offering concessions to members within the own party does seem fair & rational, but if you look in the case of Bart Stupak, sometimes it's just a recipe for deadlock. Especially in issues as monumental as healthcare reform, compromises are what create more problems and difficulties, and divide a party even further.