Compromise is a word that often drives some of us lefties crazy. Most of us are rightfully concerned of losing ground (or of not gaining ground) to society’s ills, or just as rightfully concerned that when politicians talk of compromise, they are often disingenuously using the term to placate supporters when, in fact, they only pretend at sharing those supporters’ values.

On the other hand, our political system is predicated on the very notion of compromise. As much as we would like to think otherwise, standing firm on every issue that defines us as “liberal” or “conservative” equals stasis. Representative democracy is designed that way.

So what can we expect from a system with such contradictory forces in play, not simply during the endgame that is the budget season, but in the midst of a rapidly escalating fiscal crisis? Especially given that the opposition (in our state, at any rate) seems to have a hard time playing the game honestly? Douglas is now infamous for throwing out wacky ideas that are impractical or otherwise meaningless, and as such his primary motivation in the political process has simply been to sabotage it (see his ill-timed attempt to shoot down Marriage Equality without appearing to, that of course, blew up in his face) and lay the problems at the Democrats’ feet.

They’ve been so successful at it, and its become so routine, that Republicans aren’t even pretending at being particularly honorable about it anymore. Take this from Hallenbeck Remsen yesterday:

House Republicans called a news conference to chastise Democrats for failing to get busy sooner on budget belt-tightening. House Republican Leader Patti Komline, R-Dorset, said…

They brought out a “master list of reduction ideas” assembled last December, plus a proposal Assistant House Republican Leader Pat McDonald, R-Berlin, developed in early January. McDonald said these were ideas to explore, not ideas the caucus endorsed.

Since House Republicans didn’t have the solution in hand, what were they trying to do?

“We are hoping to inspire them (Democratic leadership, since Democrats have majorities in both the House and Senate) to become a lot bolder,” Komline said.

“Inspire” Democrats? Did anybody in the room even maintain a straight face at that comment?

Clearly they have no ideas, here, and don’t care even to pretend that they do. They just want to tear down the majority for its own sake, good government be damned.

So given all this, I was asked by a lawmaker the other day how I thought the legislature would be judged by grassroots Dems on the budget. Not a simple question.

The nexus between what must be done and what should be done is a subjective one. Lawmakers will never agree with each other on where it lies, let alone with all other Vermonters. This is why the reservoir of trust the majority has been rebuilding with voters is so important. In recent years, the collective legislative majority had lost much of that trust from seeming to place itself above many of the stated concerns of its constituents. Whether that impression sprang from reality, perception and style, or some combination depends on who you ask – but it was real, nonetheless.

Smith and Nease have managed to rebuild some of that trust quickly, and even the previously-maligned Shumlin has bounced back, not simply by benefiting from the work of his House counterparts, but by showing the public his genuine passion and commitment for the explosively controversial marriage equality law.

That trust translates to wiggle room among the base. It makes it easier to swallow a bitter pill if you trust the pharmacist.

Still, the timing is poor for a fiscal crisis. That rebuilt trust is still in a fetal stage, and if leadership moves carelessly, it could easily be stillborn, leaving voters more cynical than before.

The fact is that this legislature will be judged by the Democratic base, by the media, by independents and even by the right on two things: policy priorities and, let’s call it relevance. I’d like to say that the policy half of the equation is more significant than the political, but the real truth is, they’re probably about equal. The legislature needs to show that its every bit the power player that Douglas is – a hard thing to do when your opponent is interested in little more than sabotaging you.

An example of what I mean. I was watching an otherwise lousy episode of Star Trek: TNG the other day. A subplot concerned the android Commander Data’s frustration at losing some weird strategy/speed futuristic board game to some annoying genius alien guy with really bad skin. His solution, in the end, was to stop trying to win, and to simply play to counter all his opponents moves without any other objective. His bad-skinned opponent became so frustrated, he stormed off – and Data won by default.

It’s not precisely equivalent, but Douglas is – more or less – playing Governor under the Data strategy.

So here are some watchwords I would suggest:

Adaptability: I’m not talking fiscal, here – I’m talking political. A small example – I get concerned when I hear this concrete commitment to adjourning by a date certain. That’s painting a target on your head for Jim Douglas, as that’s an easy thing to sabotage and increase frustration and entropy within the majority caucus. Sometimes lines in the sand are not a statement of your power, so much as they are handing power to the other guy. None of this should be construed to mean that I think the end date is a big deal – its not. I just get concerned that our legislature can be as light on its feet as it needs to be.

Plan for the worst. That means – like it or not – you have to expect a veto. Getting the left and the right to stay with the caucus takes different strategies, but it simply has to be done. Despite the fact that its typical in the media to beat up on the left for being non-pragmatic, the fact is that the lefties have a clearer worldview than so-dubbed wise moderates. A such, they can keep their eyes on the big picture, as long as their priorities are respected.

Moderates, on the other hand, will need a gimme. Some specific concession they can hang their hats on.

Both will need to be placated, while at the same time showing the public a clear, forward-thinking set of priorities. Unemployment benefits and health care are more important to more people than business tax breaks and even rest areas.

Revenues – go for it. All the revenue ideas have been vetted in the media and the public. Whatever damage was to come from them has already largely been done, given that they are subtle enough that nobody’s gonna be all that aware of whether or not they get implemented anyway. Go for ’em – and stop worrying about things like offsetting marginal rate cuts. That will neither bring the Governor along (because there’s nothing in that proposal he can claim victory about, so he won’t give a damn as a notion that most recently hit the press by way of Peter Shumlin, he won’t be able to lord it over Dems as a political victory), nor win you any kudos from anybody in the public.

Transparency. Talk, talk, talk. Keep the public in the loop, always.

…and on that veto… whatever the “Plan B” is in the face of a veto – and assuming the worst (that the veto is upheld), make the headline cuts for try #2 (insignificant as they may be) on the Governor’s doorstep. Cut his office, his PR people, first and foremost. Those cuts alone won’t get you where you want to be in terms of policy, but it forces a put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is narrative onto the Governor, and that could help give you leverage to bring in wayward caucus members.

More on this later. Obviously its a big topic.