Last week, while commenting on a John Harwood column about Ronald Reagan's negotiating skills, the Dividist pointed to a missing political tool that makes it harder for our federal government to forge compromise:
"Harwood missed another factor that made it easier for both Reagan and Clinton to push a deal through a divided congress. In the Reagan and Clinton eras legislative ideological opposition could be softened through the widespread practice of sweetening deals with earmarks secretly carved out in committee. Lets' call it what it was - a form of legalized bribery to buy votes by throwing money to a district or big contributor. It was slimy. It was corrupt as hell. But it was sure effective in greasing the legislative skids and blunting ideological opposition. It still happens, but not to the degree that it did in the Reagan and Clinton years. The loss of that tool makes the job harder for Obama. Regardless, if the question is where does responsibility lie for getting deals done in a divided government? The answer is that the buck stops in the Oval Office. Full stop."
David Plotz at Salon used Chris Christie's modus operandi as a starting point and takes it to another level. Here he pines for earmarks and waxes nostalgic for just the right amount of corruption in "Politics Should Be Dirtier":


