The Death of Compromise

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-10, 12:19 PM

Reading this article got me to thinking:

Whether you are left- or right-leaning (or neither), does the idea of your particular candidate swearing that they will not compromise with people of different principles trouble you? Or does it make them look better to you?

I for one find it very troubling. While the idea of there being politicians who are unable to reconcile their differences is nothing new (Charles Sumner's beating comes to mind, here), I do find it deeply troubling that we still hear it today. That we have politicians who with a straight face declare that their party should become an eternal majority.

While I wouldn't mind people holding my opinions to have the majority, I don't think I'd be comfortable with that being the case forever, or even for a very long time. It's important that everyone gets a say and that we find some kind of common ground. And while there are some things I can see being non-negotiable (such as gay marriage; for me it should be legal and if you disagree, you're a bigot) I'm not happy with the idea of entire parties, who tend to be catch-alls for lots of occasionally contradictory ideas, becoming long-lasting majorities.

p0intman · 2012-05-10, 01:38 PM

The death of compromise just means we're closer to a civil faultline than we previously were. Woe to the country when that faultline explodes. I personally like politicians who are willing to compromise to get things done that need to be done for the good of us all. If you aren't willing to set aside your personal mantra, you aren't fit for office because that is when you neglect the public at large and your duty to the country.

Unfortunately, extremism isn't just something that happens in the middle east. Religious extremists in the USA are no better than their counterparts in the middle east. This means the catholic and christian church need to clean their houses just as muslims and arabs in general have needed to do.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-10, 02:58 PM

I'm not so sure they don't believe their own rhetoric. I mean, there's a good reason congress' approval rating dipped into the single digits in February.

Sentrosi · 2012-05-10, 03:30 PM

In order for there to be change in this country, you must reach across the table and compromise with the opposing faction. Our constant ping-pong of ideas gets the ball of progress going nowhere.

So I immediately dislike AND discredit any candidate who won't compromise. It shows me that they aren't willing to hear their constituents points of view.

Neurotoxin · 2012-05-10, 03:32 PM

In Bipartisan Spirit, Obama Makes Deal To Get Kicked In Balls

Though I feel that the working class needs kicking the groin of every politician, even if the politician has no balls to kick. Buncha lame-ass corporate mouthpieces.

There's a huge difference on making a compromise that benefits people's interests vs ones that benefit corporate or state interests. Most of the compromise that goes on in the White House just kicks the working class in the balls all day long.

Baneblade · 2012-05-10, 08:28 PM

The problem with compromise is that a great many political things have no room for it. It's all or none.

CutterJohn · 2012-05-11, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The problem with compromise is that a great many political things have no room for it. It's all or none.

Such as?

Baneblade · 2012-05-11, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Such as?

Abortion, Death Penalty, Bailouts, Gitmo, War on Terror, War on Drugs, income taxes, Equal Marriage...

Figment · 2012-05-11, 05:20 AM

Poldermodel.

Sentrosi · 2012-05-11, 07:54 AM

Figment, thank you for that link. I found it full of information.

Figment · 2012-05-11, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Sentrosi

Figment, thank you for that link. I found it full of information.

Thought it was rather appropriate.

The problem in a biparty state is that you don't need to get concensus with any groups, just the majority and whoever runs the majority party can do whatever the hell they want.

If you got a wide landscape of smaller parties, you have to compromise.

There simply is no other option. So for the US, imagine that the Republicans and Democrats would be cut up into smaller parties. Ironically, Romney and Obama would probably find each other as potential partners for a government in the political middle.

Figment · 2012-05-11, 10:34 AM

The thing with constitutions and other older documents is, that once they gained a certain age in which changes were applied, even those parties once against them will cling to it as if it's a holy document that's beyond change.

The more time passes by, the less likely it is people accept changes because change always generates fear that it might change for the worse.

CutterJohn · 2012-05-11, 12:12 PM

Conservatives need liberals to drag them out of the past, to question why things are done they way they are, to look for better ways. Liberals need conservatives to put a damper on their more 'grandiose' ideas, to maintain ideas that may seem old fashioned but are at least proven to work, and be stable, to not change for the sake of change.

Authoritarians need libertarians to fight for their rights. Libertarians need authoritarians to maintain the rule of law.

Big government types need small government types to push for a smaller, more efficient government. Small government types need big government types to push for a government that can effectively perform its duties, and take on new, worthwhile, obligations.

Free marketers need socialists to put a damper on that most dangerous of all human emotions, unbridled greed. Socialists need free marketers to utilize that same powerful emotion for the benefit of all.

They aren't enemies. Adversaries, perhaps, but also complimentary, and each would lead a country to ruin without the temperance of the other. Compromise is not just important, its fundamental, and its slow disappearance is very disheartening.

**Malorn** · 2012-05-11, 02:55 PM

Meh.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-11, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

There are some things that make sense to compromise on, and some things that don't. It all comes down to how strongly you feel about something. Saying you won't compromise is a firm commitment to a belief that you feel strongly about. Declaring that isn't a bad thing.

Blanket no-compromise on anything is foolish, but we all have things that we feel strongly about and won't ever compromise. There's nothing wrong with that.

Blanket compromise is also foolish. Compromise also isn't always a good thing. It can lead to half-assed solutions that don't fix a problem and instead just drain resources. Someone who is always compromising doesn't really stand for or believe in anything. Gotta take it on a case-by-case basis. Pick and choose the battles that are worth fighting.

While I do believe that we live in a world where occasionally an absolute will arise, I'm more referring to the inability (or lack of desire) for our political parties to compromise on nearly anything. It's seen largely as a point of pride whereas I feel that ideally, refusing to compromise should be seen as a rare, unpalatable necessity when it's very clear that the other person is being wholly unreasonable, and that meeting in the middle would totally compromise the subject.

These usually involve things like death or rights. Either someone is alive, or dead. Either everyone has the same exact rights, or they don't. They tend to be binary, but they also tend to be the minority in social and political concerns. And rarely do they arise in economics.