Washington, D.C.-area Starbucks are distributing coffee cups with "Come Together" written on them, in support of a deal on the "fiscal cliff." Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has blogged a "can't we all just get along" type of explanation on the company's website.
First point: Mr. Schultz says that "our elected officials in Washington, D.C., have been unable to come together and compromise to solve the tremendously important, time-sensitive issue to fix the national debt." The tone of the post is neutral, but there's nothing politically neutral about a claim that "to fix the national debt" is either "tremendously important" or "time-sensitive."
Beyond that, the situation right now is that continued squabbling and inaction is by far the quickest way available to dramatically reduce federal budget deficits -- because inaction would allow much larger tax increases to take effect than anyone actually wants while also allowing the deep "sequester" spending cuts to take effect.
A second point is that fiscal-cliff discussions involve critical issues over which political actors -- politicians, interest groups, political parties and individual citizens -- have strong and legitimate disagreements.
Now, I do believe that a willingness to compromise is a good thing; it is necessary for democracy, particularly our Madisonian version, to work. But the fights, including vicious and intense battles that precede compromise, are even more necessary.
Self-government requires advocacy; bargaining requires at least a bit of brinkmanship from time to time. Even if everyone involved accepts the need to cut a deal at the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with pretending that they're willing to risk no deal up to the point of compromise.
All that said, the plain facts are that the two political parties have not been equivalent when it comes to brinkmanship and willingness to compromise; many in the Republican Party have come to consider compromise an inherently bad thing. Perhaps pretending otherwise and urging everyone to "come together" is the best remedy. But I suspect that a better remedy would be to point out exactly who is responsible, even if it means taking sides.
As political science professor Seth Masket has pointed out, there is an undercurrent of a lack of interest in democracy in "neutral" calls for everyone to get along. Mr. Schultz's is mostly harmless, but if he believes his own rhetoric, he should be calling for whatever policies he believes are best. That's the best way to influence the process. Even if it might not fit on a coffee cup.opinion_commentary
Jonathan Bernstein is a political scientist. He wrote this for The Washington Post.