Forum Thread

Danger of compromise.

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 15 Posts
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt and jaredsxtn oppose demands to improve the Democratic position. They offer compromise which means ending up with less of a position now standing. That is how I see especially what Schmidt is saying. Is this a correct understanding of their compromise position?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    No, it's not a correct understanding of my views, but that's never stopped you from drastically misinterpreting my views before.

    I won't speak for Schmidt.

    Spoiler alert, Chet -- Republicans control the House, Senate, Presidency, and the Supreme Court because "no compromise" so called Democrats sabotaged the last election. How did that all work out for us?

    But who am I kiddin?! Let's keep digging our heads in the sand and think what we really need to do is go even further to the left. That'll win over moderates, won't it?

    If at first you don't succeed, try try again, right??

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The danger of compromise is that congress could go from dysfunctional to functional and actually get some bills passed.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Objective number 1 should be establishing who can win in '18 and '20 and getting started in a campaign towards winning. I think our lack of communication with the 30+ red states needs corrected immediately. We are in a deficit position and we need strong effective leadership to move forward. Who we have in place will not get it done.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Bernie's Our Revolution movement is actively recruiting and supporting candidates for office at all levels. I admire their passion, but not their lack of common sense. Thus far in 2017 they have gone all in on their hand picked candidates and can claim a 34 percent success rate. And that includes the four special elections where they batted zero.

    Still they are active...lots of energy. But perhaps lacking realism on what it takes to win in purple and red states. I'm still mad about the Montana special election in which the die hard Bernie guy got beat by the body slamming, hot head Gianforte. He wouldn't even let Tom Perez campaign for him in Montana, so Bernie took the stage and went around the state with him drawing large crowds of liberal progressives yelling Bernie, Bernie, Bernie. The "think a likes" got their asses kicked in the election by an evangelical extremist guy who said that Noah worked until he was 600 years old.

    If the Bernie people continue to do their own thing (conducting purity tests) and casting blame on the DNC for losing places like Montana then 2018 will be a repeat of 2010. They live in a bubble.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What Bernie or busters haven't yet seemed to figure out is that passion is great, but winning elections is even better. Someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is a hell of a lot better than someone who agrees with me 0% of the time.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Its Ok to be hardcore on a few important issues, but "Winner take all" on all issues is a bit like a dictatorship. The winner gets to do everything he wants, and including punishing those who lost. Not going to work with our system.

    My view is that far right = far left in terms of political tactics\thinking. The further from the center in either direction, the more radical\intolerant both sides become.

    When there is no room for comprise it becomes a never-ending process of sub-division because intolerant people in the same group will become intolerant of each other. Intolerant people only accept tolerant people that follow them and are not critical\independent thinkers. To disagree with a fringe right\left extremist, is to be a traitor. Everything becomes black\white. You're either on my side 100% no matter what I say or do (including harming innocent people), or on my enemy's side who are pure evil 100% of the time; there is no middle ground, no room for disagreement.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The broader question is: What issues fall in the category of "compromise"

    When Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of bus, would anything but the end of segregation been acceptable? White leaders in Montgomery Alabama probably offered a compromise like: 5 blacks can sit at the front of the bus at a time, the rest need to sit at the back. Such an offer from white political leaders at that time\place in history would have been moderates seeking a peaceful compromise knowing they could never propose\offer full equal rights to minorities even if they knew it was the right thing to do.

    Point being: Some issues are "All or nothing". I personally think only a few issues are worthy of that level of a fight, yet in recent years practically every political issue has become "All or nothing".

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    wwjd -- Yes, I agree with both of your posts. Our country has increasingly become more and more polarized, and the extremists in both parties are driving out the moderates. That's why the number of voters who claim to be independent has risen. If the trend continues, we will have Democrats represented by 20 percent of the voters from the far left (the progressive leftists Bernie supporters of free everything) and the Republicans by the 20 percent on the far right (the hard core Trump supporters who think everything about government is evil).

    The middle 60 percent will largely be independents who don't have a party and have to hold their noses when choosing one or the other.

    To use the Dr. Seuss analogy, we'll have lots of north going Zaxes and south going Zaxes stubbornly stuck in the Prairie of Prax, making no progress because no one compromises...until they are by-passed by the moderates who go over and around them.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    "in recent years practically every political issue has become "All or nothing"."

    What are some of those issues that have become all or nothing?

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt,Here is what I hear from the compromise position. First, Silence all the opposition. Then follow the lead of what is left. What is left is Trump and from what he is proposing in health care cuts, budget cuts and tax cuts I don't see any possible benefits in dealing with him. He just met and agreed to a wall change and within hours denied it. Where is the benefit in dealing with him except in the hope of preserving certain retirement and hhealthcare provisions now in place but with no guarantees of preservation. I can't see any possible reassurances forthcoming from Trump.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    wwjd -- Yes, I agree with both of your posts. Our country has increasingly become more and more polarized, and the extremists in both parties are driving out the moderates. That's why the number of voters who claim to be independent has risen. If the trend continues, we will have Democrats represented by 20 percent of the voters from the far left (the progressive leftists Bernie supporters of free everything) and the Republicans by the 20 percent on the far right (the hard core Trump supporters who think everything about government is evil).

    The middle 60 percent will largely be independents who don't have a party and have to hold their noses when choosing one or the other.

    To use the Dr. Seuss analogy, we'll have lots of north going Zaxes and south going Zaxes stubbornly stuck in the Prairie of Prax, making no progress because no one compromises...until they are by-passed by the moderates who go over and around them.

    I worry about the same thing.

    What's so depressing is that Democrats aren't even in a position to compromise right now because Republicans control all levers of government. The only way we will ever get in a position to even have a seat at the table is if the far left accepts that a moderate Democrat is a million times better than a Tea Party republican.

    Until that happens then we can debate about compromise all we want, but we will never be in a position to force the Republicans to play ball.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:

    The broader question is: What issues fall in the category of "compromise"

    When Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of bus, would anything but the end of segregation been acceptable? White leaders in Montgomery Alabama probably offered a compromise like: 5 blacks can sit at the front of the bus at a time, the rest need to sit at the back. Such an offer from white political leaders at that time\place in history would have been moderates seeking a peaceful compromise knowing they could never propose\offer full equal rights to minorities even if they knew it was the right thing to do.

    Point being: Some issues are "All or nothing". I personally think only a few issues are worthy of that level of a fight, yet in recent years practically every political issue has become "All or nothing".

    That's a very interesting point.

    To your more general question about what issues fall into the compromise category, I would say that issues of civil and human rights are far different than tax policy and healthcare. I'm as uncompromising as they come when it has to do with civil and human rights, but I'm willing to discuss tax rates and what healthcare system might be the best system for our country with those who have differing opinions.

    I will never compromise with those who believe in white superiority, but I will compromise with those who believe that the tax rate should be at a different percentage than I would prefer. I will never compromise with those who believe that a man shouldn't be able to marry the person he loves simply because that person is another man, but I will compromise with those who offer a different perspective on how we should make sure all Americans have adequate health coverage.

    Does that make me a right-wing zealot? I sure as shit don't believe so, but I've been accused of being one simply because I point out that Bernie or busters live in a purity test alternate universe where you're either with them or against them. That will only lead us to more gridlock and a worse life for the people they profess to care so much about.

    Compromise isn't a four letter word for the vast majority of things. No, we can not compromise away our deeply held values as liberals, but for Christs sake, we have to learn to talk with people who don't agree with 100% of everything we say.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Jared -- Well said. I agree with your viewpoint. Also, as one who has discussed, debated, argued, with those ideologues on both the extreme left and extreme right, including relatives, I have a very poor success rate on changing minds...or "changing brains" as George Lakoff would put it. In any case that cannot be accomplished in a forum post or one-on-one conversation. It takes time.

    What I worry about more is the ideological behavior of those on the far left who see center left Democrats like Hillary Clinton as much or more of an enemy than someone like Donald Trump. Hate is difficult to unlearn once someone is indoctrinated to hate a person.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Jared -- Well said. I agree with your viewpoint. Also, as one who has discussed, debated, argued, with those ideologues on both the extreme left and extreme right, including relatives, I have a very poor success rate on changing minds...or "changing brains" as George Lakoff would put it. In any case that cannot be accomplished in a forum post or one-on-one conversation. It takes time.

    Trust me, I understand that full well!

    I am the sole liberal in a family dominated by Republicans. And I'm not just talking about my immediate family. I'm talking cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, etc.

    I can have thoughtful and constructive debates with a select few family members, but avoid talking politics with the vast majority of my family and typically leave the room whenever it's brought up by one of my more extreme uncles.

    However, one thing I love is when I'm able to get one of my sane family members to think about something from a different perspective. My dad is one of those sane family members and it's great when I'm able to get through to him. My motive isn't to change his political affiliation, but rather to just get him to think about things from someone else's perspective.

    It took years, but my dad finally changed his views on gay marriage and that was before the Supreme Court ruled it was a Constitutional right. I'll never forget the day my dad shamed my uncle who opposes gay marriage by quoting scripture and asking his brother if he followed the words of Jesus. (My parents and the vast majority of my family are deeply religious.) I never said a word to him afterwards, but it took years of conversations with my dad before he changed his mind about gay marriage. I'll never know why he eventually changed his mind, but he did and that's all that matters.

    Sorry if I'm coming across as rambling, but my point is that it takes time and a whole lot of patience to change peoples deeply held opinions. "My way or the highway" only divides us even more than we already are. I never shamed my father for being against gay marriage, but I also stood firm and pushed back against alternative suggestions he had that would have given gay individuals some rights, but not full rights.

    I was uncompromising, but empathetic and it worked.

    Schmidt Wrote: What I worry about more is the ideological behavior of those on the far left who see center left Democrats like Hillary Clinton as much or more of an enemy than someone like Donald Trump. Hate is difficult to unlearn once someone is indoctrinated to hate a person.

    As you know - I worry about the extreme left more than I do the extreme right. The extreme left were willing to sabotage a Presidential election out of pure spite. They were willing to hand the keys of the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court to Republicans because their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination.

    What's even more scary is that Hillary's loss in the electoral college has somehow convinced them that they were right all along! I wonder how many elections we'll have to lose before these people realize that the vast majority of Democrats want nothing to do with them.

    I hope it was worth it for all those Bernie or busters who would rather see a narcissistic sociopath have the keys to our nuclear codes than a technocratic Democrat who understood that compromise isn't a dirty word.