Is it better to work with your opposition to govern for all or destroy them publicly?

Is it better to work with your opposition to govern for all or destroy them publicly?

Would you rather see your preferential political party work and play nice with the opposition, making sacrafices here and there sometimes, for the greater goal of governeing everyone in society?

Or

Would you rather see your preferential political party do everything it can to publically destroy, discredit, or otherwise do everything in their power to thwart all efforts of opposing ideas, and enforce soley their own brand of governing upon all citizens?

 

Compromise is usually the only way forward.

 

I feel insane every single time I'm asked to compromise...


You see, there's this little island in the Pacific. One man owns half the island, another man owns the other half. There's a line right down the middle, just to keep it fair.

One day, the first man draws a new line on the other man's half, and says "this is the new line." The other man says, "no, the line is fine where it was!" "You're too old-fashioned," the first man replies. After much debate, the second man agrees as long as he gets an extra fish a day.

The next day, the first man draws another line, again on the second man's land. The second man disagrees, but after debating again, agrees to the new line as long as he gets more water the next time it rains.

This goes on for a few weeks, and finally the second man realizes that, although he has many fish, a good deal of fresh water, and has other odds and ends he got from compromising, he has run out of land with which to compromise.

This man no longer has a stake on the island - nor should he, because he so readily compromised away what little security the island had to offer to begin with.

If the Liberty-minded man that is the true America compromises much more, he'll find himself swimming with the sharks and regretting the day he gave up a little bit of land on that island in the Pacific.

 

Well, "usually" is the operative word in my response.

I'm not saying compromise is always the best approach. Some things are worth fighting for, but you choose your battles.

 

On rare occasions, I am inclined to agree with you on that score - I tend to think the term "compromise" is given a nearly divine aura, when it is, by definition, not the best option.

 

Well, best is subjective. I'm just saying that compromise is the only way things usually get done in a multi-party system.

America's two-party system is less conducive to compromise than the coalition governments in many parliamentary systems, but even so, gridlock can only hold for so long.

 

I believe things were much better before the archaic liberals of the compromised and became paleoconservatives, before paleocons compromised and became neoconservatives, and before neocons compromised and became progressives. The progressives of today are likely the Fascists of tomorrow.

I wish gridlock could hold for longer - the day the gridlock breaks, the gates of hell will spew forth a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of communofascist bigotry.

 

I wouldn't exactly consider most modern conservatives to be progressive.

In fact, the opposite seemed to occur. The original Progressive Party was headlined by Teddy Roosevelt, an ex-Republican. For many decades, there was a faction of the GOP known as "Rockefeller Republicans" who were progressive on some issues.

If anything, the modern GOP is less progressive than its predecessors.

By the same token, the Democrats were the original social conservatives. Back when they were the party of the Solid South, they were the party that leaned more towards states' rights and social conservatism.

The neocons were just a reaction by the GOP to the development of neoliberalism in the Democratic party. Both of these ideologies are more recent than progressivism, which stemmed from the early 1900s.

Lately, the GOP has seen a resurgence of classical liberalism or libertarianism in part of the party. That shares a few things in common with progressivism, but it differs more often.

 

The Grand Old Party has seen little change as of very late - and that, not for the better. There have been some individuals such as Rand Paul and, to a lesser extent, Marco Rubio, that hail back to the days of Barry Goldwater or even a moderate version of Thomas Jefferson; however, it appears (at least, to me) that they are only slight upticks on the generally downward-trending graph of American politics.

I must agree, though - libertarianism/archaic liberalism have more in common with "conservatism" than with progressivism.

 

Well, if nothing else, I would agree that our foreign policy has certainly gone that way.

We're definitely learning the hard way how expensive it is to be the world's police. Hopefully, we'll start drawing back our forces in the pursuit of less spending.

I also haven't been a fan of the increasing corporate cronyism implemented by both parties when it comes to Wall Street's influence over the system.

The War on Terror has also decreased our civil liberties considerably for the sake of some false sense of security.

As far as progressivism goes though... I can't say I disagree with all of it. I like the fact that we're becoming more tolerant of gay people. I like the fact that racism seems to be pretty minimal compared to past times. Sexism is also pretty minimal.

Where progressives falter is similar to where theocrats do. They want to force people to live as they would prefer. Nanny state policies are where both the left and right encroach on personal liberties.

 

I agree with everything you've said except the racism part - I tend to see more race-related problems now than existed in the 90's, particularly due to "reverse discrimination" policies like Affirmative Action and false accusations of racism by many in the media.

 

Oh, I'm not a fan of AA either, but the good news is that it may be on its way out.

 

Great! I think you're the second person I've been able to reach an agreement with on this forum!
I haven't heard any news about affirmative action lately, though - where would I find this?

 

In the poll I selected the option for working with the opposition, which I consider wise under a number of circumstances. I do not support compromise for its own sake however, and am of the opinion that the governing party should do whatever it can in an honourable, ethically sound manner to advance their own policy agenda. In contrast, I think it is very destructive, divisive, and illiberal for one faction to systematically deceive the masses, suppress or abuse opponents, make use of underhanded tactics and exploit regulatory loopholes to achieve a competitive edge, etc. to come out on top. Maintaining the excellence of the policy-making process and governing institutions ought to take precedence over getting ones bills passed.

 

Work 'with' political oppostion (but in a different way):
Explain both sides that politics is about organisation and not about solving problems (this is the fundamental thing) Because politics has only caused problems since it begun over a century ago, and the more problems the more struggle/fight/battle, and by that organisation of large groups of people, the sides, in the US currently three large political groups, Reps, Dems and TP.
Politics is strongly influenced by ideology (thats why there are so many terms and labels used today, to deceive and confuse and cause opposition or coalitions (the fight continues by that, the problems stay), so that politics is not a problem solving institute, but an institute of organisation)
As soon as politics (any side, any thought, any person) start to solve problems (economically and socially) it's not about organization of the people/masses anymore (so not a danger to freedom/liberties)
All (economical and social) problems caused cause on fundamental thing, resistance/fight/battle, by that organisation (because the masses start to resist and fight, but when their problems would be solved by politics they would stop resisting, and cannot be organized behind political leaders, which are not common people, always insiders (and if there are common politicians they are mind engineered by spindoctors/advisors, by using deception by using political terminology)

 

It's more of a long term thing. In the near future, there likely won't be a racial majority here, so when we're all minorities, it will defeat the purpose of having AA.

 

I tend to think that the true purpose of AA is division... but then, I can occasionally go overboard with conspiracy theories.

 

It wouldn't surprise me. I believe open immigration policies certainly have that aim.

 

Agreed. They are like many welfare projects in that regard - designed, at least to some degree, to create a permanent disparity in the wealth of the population (with minorities generally being the ones kept at the low income bracket) in order to facilitate greater enmity between the "classes." (Except that racial and cultural disparity is more often the goal of current immigration policies).

Class warfare is, of course, another crisis which politicians of either side might be all-too-happy to exploit.

 

I wouldn't say welfare policies in and of themselves are the problem, but they become a problem when a country invites large amounts of very poor into their system.

For example, Norway and Finland have vast welfare programs, but they have very low wealth disparity. This works for them because they have very little immigration.

In a nation with a lot of immigration, you have to reduce the welfare state, or else you end up with a huge underclass that is willing to riot eventually. Sweden and France have shown this in recent years.

 

From a factual standpoint, you are right; however, as a civil libertarian I can't morally condone the "forced donation" of one group's assets to another group, regardless of the amount of money or welfare recipients involved.
That's not to say all welfare recipients are evil, of course - one of my best friends is a second-generation food stamp and welfare recipient.

 

That's understandable. I'm not a libertarian myself, but I can understand where you're coming from.

I don't fit any particular ideology in my combination of views. I hold stances among socialism, liberalism, libertarianism, and conservatism, so for me, it depends on each issue as to where I fall in the political spectrum.

 

I want my party to stand firm on basic principles. I don't want the politics of destruction. I would like to hear honest debates about the issues.

 

While it is better to work with the opposition, if they refuse to cooperate, as the repubs have done, destroy them. With the repubs destroyed, a new "conservative" party will arise rapidly and, as long as they can keep the ideological lunatics currently in charge of the GOP out, things will be OK. If the repub nut cases simply make the transfer and take over, then we will be back to square one, polarization, and their doing their best to start another civil war.

 

Under Obama, the dems have never even pretended to compromise. Instead, they demonize the Republicans because the Republicans aren't caving enough (the Republicans are caving too much, IMHO).