The Death of Compromise

[ItsTheSheppy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[CutterJohn]

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?

[Figment]

Poldermodel.

[Sentrosi]

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

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Such as?

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

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

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

Abortion - Perhaps, but things get tricky in the late term where it could be argued that the fetus can be made viable with no further contribution of the mother. I'm not a doctor, so I'm not qualified to say when that is.

Death Penalty - Agreed, either you sentence convicts to death or you don't.

Bailouts - What? There's lots of room for compromise here. How big? to whom, and how often? Funded by what? Is there repayment? How much interest?

Gitmo - Partial agreement; either you close it or you don't.

War on Terror - Again, what? There's... I can't even begin to detail all the ways there could be compromises made here. What kind of scale? What countries is it fought in? How much money do we set aside for it? Who are we hunting, and why? On and on...

War of Drugs - See above.

Income taxes - Please tell me you don't honestly believe it's a question of either we have them or we don't, with no gray areas. Please, please tell me you understand that much.

Equal Marraige - I'll agree with you there. Civil rights are all-or-nothing. Either you and I both get to have cookies, or nobody does. It's not fair if I get cookies and you get none, just because I was born with blue eyes and you weren't.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Abortion - Perhaps, but things get tricky in the late term where it could be argued that the fetus can be made viable with no further contribution of the mother. I'm not a doctor, so I'm not qualified to say when that is.

Umm, that is irrelevant, because an aborted fetus is still an aborted fetus. Or does the fetus get to compromise too?

Bailouts - What? There's lots of room for compromise here. How big? to whom, and how often? Funded by what? Is there repayment? How much interest?

How about no bailouts at all?

War on Terror - Again, what? There's... I can't even begin to detail all the ways there could be compromises made here. What kind of scale? What countries is it fought in? How much money do we set aside for it? Who are we hunting, and why? On and on...

War of Drugs - See above.

How about we end both Wars on Freedom? Going to war, but only against this Placeistan, with only this many soldiers, and only for this one hill is still A WAR.

Income taxes - Please tell me you don't honestly believe it's a question of either we have them or we don't, with no gray areas. Please, please tell me you understand that much.

Did you know that wages and salaries are not defined as income, but compensation? The compromise you are talking about (but I'm sure didn't know about) was to change the definition and public perception.


On another note, I'm glad you aren't as dumb as I thought you were. Really.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Umm, that is irrelevant, because an aborted fetus is still an aborted fetus. Or does the fetus get to compromise too?

The fetus isn't capable of making that decision because, frankly, it's not really a human yet. You and I can disagree on that, but the point is not whether or not abortion should be legal, but rather if there is room for compromise. I believe that there is.

How about no bailouts at all?

... is certainly one of many options. But, again, there is room for compromise there. Your statement that there isn't is a fallacy.

How about we end both Wars on Freedom? Going to war, but only against this Placeistan, with only this many soldiers, and only for this one hill is still A WAR.

I'm not exactly sure what the 'war on freedom' is, or what you're trying to get at with the above statement.

Did you know that wages and salaries are not defined as income, but compensation? The compromise you are talking about (but I'm sure didn't know about) was to change the definition and public perception.

Okay. So what? What exactly is the point? You offered it as an example of there being no room to compromise based on the nature of the issue. I disagree and I don't see anything in the above statement that bolsters your claim.

On another note, I'm glad you aren't as dumb as I thought you were. Really.

And you were doing so well, too. I'm sure you'll manage next time.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

The fetus isn't capable of making that decision because, frankly, it's not really a human yet. You and I can disagree on that, but the point is not whether or not abortion should be legal, but rather if there is room for compromise. I believe that there is.

The life is extinquished or it is not, when it is extinguished is not a compromise.

... is certainly one of many options. But, again, there is room for compromise there. Your statement that there isn't is a fallacy.

Bailouts do nothing good.

[quote]I'm not exactly sure what the 'war on freedom' is, or what you're trying to get at with the above statement.[/quote

A war is a war is a war. The scale of it has nothing to do with it being a war.

Okay. So what? What exactly is the point? You offered it as an example of there being no room to compromise based on the nature of the issue. I disagree and I don't see anything in the above statement that bolsters your claim.

The Constitution does not compromise on what is taxable revenue. It is explicit.

[Figment]

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.