The Rio Stanton Report

Tag: compromise

  • Stop Trusting Republicans to Play Fair

    Stop Trusting Republicans to Play Fair

    One thing that used to really piss me off about the Obama administration (and the Democratic Party as a whole) was the refusal to recognize just how far Republicans were willing to go to gain and keep power.

    Democratic leaders kept looking for reasonable partners. They kept talking about compromise, common ground, and reaching across the aisle. Meanwhile, Republicans kept showing them that their commitment to those things lasted only as long as it served their interests.

    At some point, believing them becomes a choice.

    There is no reasoning your way around people who negotiate in bad faith. There is no meaningful compromise when one side treats every concession as an opportunity to demand more. The Democratic Party needs to stand up and fight tooth and nail for the principles it claims to hold.

    But the lessons of the Obama years still don’t seem to have sunk in.

    We keep waiting for Republicans to come to their senses, embrace their better angels, or stand by their own words. Then, when they abandon those words, Democratic leaders act disappointed. They seem to think disappointment is going to shame Republicans into changing their behavior.

    How many times do we have to watch this?

    The fight over the Supreme Court in 2020 made this painfully clear. Some people genuinely counted on a handful of Republican senators to honor the standard their party had used to block Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. They expected consistency from people who had already demonstrated that the rules could change whenever power was at stake.

    After the Senate failed to convict Trump in his first impeachment trial, some still believed that those same Republican senators would suddenly put fairness ahead of political advantage.

    Why? What had they done to earn that faith?

    The Democratic leadership, the corporate media, and far too many liberals keep convincing themselves that this time Republicans will play fairly. This time, institutional norms will hold. This time, someone will discover a conscience.

    And when that doesn’t happen, we get another round of solemn speeches about how troubling it all is.

    I am tired of being told to admire the restraint of people who keep getting their asses handed to them.

    There is a familiar saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Whoever first said it, the point applies here. It is beyond frustrating to watch Democratic leaders repeat an approach that keeps failing, then have their defenders insist that the rest of us simply don’t understand the strategy.

    Apparently, they’re always playing three-dimensional chess. Apparently, every defeat is part of some brilliant plan that will reveal itself later.

    Meanwhile, the whole thing looks more like Wile E. Coyote chasing the damn Road Runner.

    And every time a liberal shows up to explain that my lack of faith is unwarranted, I want to ask: What, exactly, am I supposed to be impressed by?

    The speeches? The stern letters? The commitment to looking reasonable while the other side takes what it wants?

    I do not need another lecture about patience from someone who confuses having a strategy with defending whatever the leadership happens to do.

    Compromise requires people who will honor an agreement. When political leaders repeatedly abandon their own standards for an advantage, trusting them again should require evidence—not another appeal to their supposed decency.

    And compromise itself should not be treated as a virtue regardless of what gets surrendered. People’s rights, livelihoods, and futures are on the line. The goal cannot simply be to reach an agreement so everyone in Washington can congratulate themselves for being bipartisan.

    The goal should be to deliver something worth fighting for.

    Democratic leaders need to stop acting as though Republican approval is necessary to make their demands legitimate. Make the case. Use the power voters gave you. Organize. Give people a reason to show up, stay involved, and believe that their participation matters.

    If the party claims to stand for working people, civil rights, and democracy, then it needs to fight like those commitments mean something.

    Stop trusting Republicans to become the partners you wish they were. Make your demands, prepare for a real political fight, and rally the damn people behind you.

  • The Myth That Progressive Ideas Are “Too Radical”

    The Myth That Progressive Ideas Are “Too Radical”

    For years, progressives have been told that our ideas are “too radical” for American voters.

    Apparently, wanting things like:

    • police accountability when unarmed citizens are killed
    • wages that working people can actually live on
    • tuition-free public college
    • universal healthcare
    • serious action on climate change
    • investment in social services instead of endless militarization
    • stronger labor protections and workers’ rights

    …is supposed to be political extremism.

    But here’s the strange part: when these ideas are polled individually, they often receive majority support among the American public, including significant support from voters who identify as independents or even Republicans.

    So if the policies themselves are popular, why do political strategists keep insisting that progressive politics is the problem?

    Too often, Democratic leadership responds to electoral setbacks by blaming the left. We observed this after the 2016 election and again after the disappointing election cycles that failed to produce a victory for the Democrats in 2024.

    However, that explanation overlooks a more fundamental issue with their messaging to voters.

    For decades, Democratic campaigns have frequently tried to position themselves in the political center, appealing to moderate Republican voters and emphasizing bipartisanship. The problem is that this strategy often yields campaigns based on vague platitudes rather than specific, tangible promises.

    “Reaching across the aisle” may sound noble in theory, but it rarely inspires voters who are struggling with stagnant wages, rising healthcare costs, student debt, and unaffordable childcare.

    Concrete policies do inspire people.

    Free public college would dramatically expand opportunities for working-class families. Universal healthcare would provide security to millions of Americans dealing with rising medical costs. A workers’ bill of rights guaranteeing living wages, overtime protections, paid leave, and fair labor standards would materially improve the lives of millions.

    These are not fringe ideas. Versions of them already exist throughout much of the developed world.

    Yet in American political discourse, these proposals are frequently labeled “socialist” or “radical.”

    The reality is that progressive politicians who campaign clearly on economic issues often generate enthusiasm among voters who feel ignored by traditional party messaging.

    Figures such as Zorhan Mamdani, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Katie Porter, Ro Khanna, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, and Barbara Lee, among others, have built strong political followings by speaking directly about economic inequality, corporate power, and the needs of working people.

    Whether one agrees with every progressive policy or not, it is difficult to deny that these campaigns often generate energy and engagement among voters who might otherwise stay home.

    The lesson here is not that progressives are the enemy of the Democratic Party. In many cases, they are the ones providing the clearest economic (and even social) message.

    Political movements succeed when they offer people tangible improvements in their lives. Voters are far more likely to mobilize around real material change than around abstract promises of moderation and compromise.

    If the goal is to build a stronger and more equitable society, the debate should not be about whether progress is “too radical.”

    It should be about whether our political system is willing to deliver it.