Full Version: Can you be true to your philosophy
We all can agree that something is better than nothing. Something that has struck me lately is that if an idea or someone does not propose what we believe fully, that the person is often times labeled a “sellout” or that the idea is completely no good. We see this here at AD, and we see it in politics all of the time.
Examples abound. Since CAFTA didn’t force the full labor and environmental standards that the US has on the Central American countries, it is a bad agreement. A tax proposal that offers all of the benefits of 2001 tax cuts while raising taxes 200,000 people is denounced as a bad idea since it does not’t fully achieve the status of flat tax or consumption tax. Rush Limbaugh is lambasting John McCain and the other six Republicans of the “Gang of 14” as sellouts for compromising on the filibustering of judicial nominees. Never mind the results of such compromises. Looking back on it, virtually all of Bush’s nominees were confirmed. Bolton is still going to the UN on recess appointment. Most importantly, John Roberts appears a shoe in for Supreme Court confirmation since the Democrats of the “Gang of 14” have come out and said that the extra burden of “extraordinary circumstances” makes it virtually impossible for them to filibuster his nomination. Yet even today Rush was slamming Voinovich, McCain, and the rest of the compromising Republicans.
Questions for Debate: Is it generally better to hold fast and true to your philosophies, or to compromise? Are politicians who compromise “sellouts”? Is the derision of compromise or middle of the road proposals a form of Categorical Division? In terms of US policy, is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
Examples abound. Since CAFTA didn’t force the full labor and environmental standards that the US has on the Central American countries, it is a bad agreement. A tax proposal that offers all of the benefits of 2001 tax cuts while raising taxes 200,000 people is denounced as a bad idea since it does not’t fully achieve the status of flat tax or consumption tax. Rush Limbaugh is lambasting John McCain and the other six Republicans of the “Gang of 14” as sellouts for compromising on the filibustering of judicial nominees. Never mind the results of such compromises. Looking back on it, virtually all of Bush’s nominees were confirmed. Bolton is still going to the UN on recess appointment. Most importantly, John Roberts appears a shoe in for Supreme Court confirmation since the Democrats of the “Gang of 14” have come out and said that the extra burden of “extraordinary circumstances” makes it virtually impossible for them to filibuster his nomination. Yet even today Rush was slamming Voinovich, McCain, and the rest of the compromising Republicans.
Questions for Debate: Is it generally better to hold fast and true to your philosophies, or to compromise? Are politicians who compromise “sellouts”? Is the derision of compromise or middle of the road proposals a form of Categorical Division? In terms of US policy, is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
Questions for Debate: Is it generally better to hold fast and true to your philosophies, or to compromise? Are politicians who compromise “sellouts”? Is the derision of compromise or middle of the road proposals a form of Categorical Division? In terms of US policy, is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
He who compromises with himself on principles of morality is a hypocrite. However, he who compromises with others who hold different moral positions is a statesman.
The failure to distinguish between compromising with oneself and compromising with others is the source of so much political anguish. We see it with the pro-life people, who insist on fighting a battle that they will never win, refusing to compromise, and thereby distracting us all from political issues that we can actually work out. They are not the only ones; there have always been die-hards who simply refuse to accept the situation and keep on fighting. What matters is whether there is any hope of success. For example, the civil rights activists of the 50s and 60s were true heroes; they refused to accept evil and they worked against it, and eventually they won. Moreover, the civil rights movement proceeded one step at a time: school desegregation, segregated restrooms, seats in buses, and so forth. At each step, they knew they could win. Sometimes they compromised to make what progress they could.
The fundamental point that drives democracy is the realization that different people have different moral standards, and yet we all must get along. Compromise is the only way that people with different moral standards can live together. Compromise is the lifeblood of democracy; refusal to compromise is the basis of tyranny.
He who compromises with himself on principles of morality is a hypocrite. However, he who compromises with others who hold different moral positions is a statesman.
The failure to distinguish between compromising with oneself and compromising with others is the source of so much political anguish. We see it with the pro-life people, who insist on fighting a battle that they will never win, refusing to compromise, and thereby distracting us all from political issues that we can actually work out. They are not the only ones; there have always been die-hards who simply refuse to accept the situation and keep on fighting. What matters is whether there is any hope of success. For example, the civil rights activists of the 50s and 60s were true heroes; they refused to accept evil and they worked against it, and eventually they won. Moreover, the civil rights movement proceeded one step at a time: school desegregation, segregated restrooms, seats in buses, and so forth. At each step, they knew they could win. Sometimes they compromised to make what progress they could.
The fundamental point that drives democracy is the realization that different people have different moral standards, and yet we all must get along. Compromise is the only way that people with different moral standards can live together. Compromise is the lifeblood of democracy; refusal to compromise is the basis of tyranny.
In politics, learning to compromise is important. Otherwise, we'd never get anywhere. It's especially dangerous now since there seems to be a pervasive belief in our society that we should never compromise; that we should stand tough on all our issues to fight our interests (e.g. Bolton's "tough talk" actually considered a plus for his post to the UN, or the attacks from the conservative camp on "flip-floppers").
For instance, take UN reforms, which is a very current topic. This is the best chance in many years for us to finally implement reforms within the UN. However, given our unpopularity in the world today, not many countries are likely to go with our plans for reform. However, without the support of the US, any reform plan proposed by other countries are likely to fail too. If we are not prepared to compromise, any reform plan is not likely to pass the General Assembly with the required two-thirds majority, and we would have squandered our valuable chance.
For instance, take UN reforms, which is a very current topic. This is the best chance in many years for us to finally implement reforms within the UN. However, given our unpopularity in the world today, not many countries are likely to go with our plans for reform. However, without the support of the US, any reform plan proposed by other countries are likely to fail too. If we are not prepared to compromise, any reform plan is not likely to pass the General Assembly with the required two-thirds majority, and we would have squandered our valuable chance.
Is it generally better to hold fast and true to your philosophies, or to compromise? Are politicians who compromise “sellouts”? Is the derision of compromise or middle of the road proposals a form of Categorical Division? In terms of US policy, is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
A British politician once described government as "the art of the possible". I'd go further and describe the actual exercise of power as being the art of the practical - do what works.
Implied in that is the necessity, not just the desirability, of compromise.
In practice, most of the time good government requires politicians to cut deals to get as much of their agenda through as possible, rather than hold out for 100% ideological purity.
When they do hold out, the result is either nothing (because more often than not, their views are too extreme for them to hold any electoral power anyway - total ideological consistency is usually a luxury only the political extremes can afford) or bad laws.
The UK political system is notorious for allowing parties with large majorities to steam-roll through any Bill they feel like - the Tories had their Poll Tax, Labour have had rather too many similar ideas.
The current Republican domination of Congress and the Whitehouse echoes this one-sided dominance - there are just not enough Democrats there to stop partisan lawmaking. The problem hasn't been too acute yet - the political culture and constitutional structure are not the same as here and help to mitigate the oft-cited "tyranny of the majority".
I would agree with Erasmussimo though - compromise is a necessity when dealing with others, but a weakness when dealing with yourself. Though I would refine it and say that, in a politician, accepting that your own ideals are not completely acheivable is not as bad as convincing the electorate that theirs ideals are , then doing all the compromising behind closed doors and blaming someone else. A lost art in politics is the ability to say to the public that they are just plain wrong or badly informed on an issue. I can understand why politicians don't do it.
I think what I'm reaching for is that, sometimes, politicians need to persuade the public that we need to compromise, rather than stringing us along with airy statements of high principle, doing a backroom deal to get something done, and then leaving us feeling let down. I think a lot of the disenchantment with modern politics happens because politicians don't explain what they do nearly as much as they promote what they do.
And we're all to blame for that, with decreasing media coverage and lowering attention spans.
A British politician once described government as "the art of the possible". I'd go further and describe the actual exercise of power as being the art of the practical - do what works.
Implied in that is the necessity, not just the desirability, of compromise.
In practice, most of the time good government requires politicians to cut deals to get as much of their agenda through as possible, rather than hold out for 100% ideological purity.
When they do hold out, the result is either nothing (because more often than not, their views are too extreme for them to hold any electoral power anyway - total ideological consistency is usually a luxury only the political extremes can afford) or bad laws.
The UK political system is notorious for allowing parties with large majorities to steam-roll through any Bill they feel like - the Tories had their Poll Tax, Labour have had rather too many similar ideas.
The current Republican domination of Congress and the Whitehouse echoes this one-sided dominance - there are just not enough Democrats there to stop partisan lawmaking. The problem hasn't been too acute yet - the political culture and constitutional structure are not the same as here and help to mitigate the oft-cited "tyranny of the majority".
I would agree with Erasmussimo though - compromise is a necessity when dealing with others, but a weakness when dealing with yourself. Though I would refine it and say that, in a politician, accepting that your own ideals are not completely acheivable is not as bad as convincing the electorate that theirs ideals are , then doing all the compromising behind closed doors and blaming someone else. A lost art in politics is the ability to say to the public that they are just plain wrong or badly informed on an issue. I can understand why politicians don't do it.
I think what I'm reaching for is that, sometimes, politicians need to persuade the public that we need to compromise, rather than stringing us along with airy statements of high principle, doing a backroom deal to get something done, and then leaving us feeling let down. I think a lot of the disenchantment with modern politics happens because politicians don't explain what they do nearly as much as they promote what they do.
And we're all to blame for that, with decreasing media coverage and lowering attention spans.
Questions for Debate: Is it generally better to hold fast and true to your philosophies, or to compromise? Are politicians who compromise “sellouts”? Is the derision of compromise or middle of the road proposals a form of Categorical Division? In terms of US policy, is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
In a perfect world, people would never have to compromise. They could develop their world-view and stick to it 100% of the time. There is much to be said of consistency.
However politics is not, nor will it ever be, perfect. The nature of the beast is compromise. Getting others to accept your ideas (which they may not whole-heartedly agree with) takes you also accepting some of their ideas (which you may not agree with).
What some people may complain about is compromise when compromise is not necessary. If a political party has a clear majority, there is little need to compromise and there should be little incentive to do so. Lawmakers are representatives of the people and when possible, should follow the stances on issues that got them elected whenever possible.
For the party in the minority, compromise is the only way to get anything accomplished. In this case, the minority party should do its best to "water down" majority proposals (again, following the principles and issues stances that got them elected). It is naive to think that the minority will get much of its agenda thru. Their focus should be damage control and reigning in perceived excesses by the majority. They can't expect much else.
Compromise for compromise's sake is not a good thing. Compromise which results in getting something done (where nothing would be accomplished without it) is good.
In a perfect world, people would never have to compromise. They could develop their world-view and stick to it 100% of the time. There is much to be said of consistency.
However politics is not, nor will it ever be, perfect. The nature of the beast is compromise. Getting others to accept your ideas (which they may not whole-heartedly agree with) takes you also accepting some of their ideas (which you may not agree with).
What some people may complain about is compromise when compromise is not necessary. If a political party has a clear majority, there is little need to compromise and there should be little incentive to do so. Lawmakers are representatives of the people and when possible, should follow the stances on issues that got them elected whenever possible.
For the party in the minority, compromise is the only way to get anything accomplished. In this case, the minority party should do its best to "water down" majority proposals (again, following the principles and issues stances that got them elected). It is naive to think that the minority will get much of its agenda thru. Their focus should be damage control and reigning in perceived excesses by the majority. They can't expect much else.
Compromise for compromise's sake is not a good thing. Compromise which results in getting something done (where nothing would be accomplished without it) is good.
QUOTE(Just Leave me Alone! @ Aug 3 2005, 11:26 PM)
Questions for Debate: Is it generally better to hold fast and true to your philosophies, or to compromise? Are politicians who compromise “sellouts”? Is the derision of compromise or middle of the road proposals a form of Categorical Division? In terms of US policy, is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
A utilitarian can hold tight to his philosophy and compromise at the same time. My view of what a politician should do is quite simple - make the world a better place. If you disagree with someone else on what should be done, you should weigh the consequences of compromising with those of holding out. If compromising will result in the best policies being passed, then compromise. If not, then hold out.
QUOTE
The failure to distinguish between compromising with oneself and compromising with others is the source of so much political anguish. We see it with the pro-life people, who insist on fighting a battle that they will never win, refusing to compromise, and thereby distracting us all from political issues that we can actually work out.
How come it is the pro-life people that are the ones to err here. Couldn't the words pro-choice be put in the place of pro-life and your statement be just as valid?
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Aug 4 2005, 08:09 AM)
How come it is the pro-life people that are the ones to err here. Couldn't the words pro-choice be put in the place of pro-life and your statement be just as valid?
I realize that we are committing some topic drift, but so long as we hold to the issue of compromise rather than abortion, I think the powers that be will suffer our peccadillos.
My reference was only to that 20% of the population that insists that abortion be illegal in all circumstances. There is plenty of room for compromise if we think in terms of when abortion becomes illegal: 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 20 weeks, and so forth. This is the stuff of compromise. But refusing to discuss the problem in these terms is uncompromising.
Ahh. When you added the caveat "in all circumstances" I agree with you they are being stubborn by not compromising. In your earlier statement you had included all pro-life people. I consider myself pro-life, but think abortion should be on the table for incest, rape, and mothers health. But you cannot expect one side to compromise and the other to not. For example there are those in the pro-choice side who belive an abortion should be available at any time during a pregnancy. I have even seen it argued here. Would you agree that those people are not willing to compromise as well?
Are politicians who compromise “sellouts”?
I do not think so. They are often just taking a smoother pathway to the same end. The results are not immediate, but that is a good thing. They aren't "sellouts". They are just the Tortoise. And slow and steady wins the race.
Is the derision of compromise or middle of the road proposals a form of Categorical Division?
I would not have asked this question if I did not think so. Although, maybe I've gotten the terms backwards. If anyone has a better term for what I'm about to say, I'd love to know it. Just because an idea has something that you do not like or is missing something that you want does not make the entire idea bad. I see this too often. Politicians consistently talk of what a proposal does not do instead of actually looking at what it would do. I think this tactic is a major contirbutor in the polarization of this country.
In terms of US policy, is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
Absolutely. I know this is America, but there is no need to get greedy in terms of US policy. Take what you can get and continue marching forward.
I do not think so. They are often just taking a smoother pathway to the same end. The results are not immediate, but that is a good thing. They aren't "sellouts". They are just the Tortoise. And slow and steady wins the race.
Is the derision of compromise or middle of the road proposals a form of Categorical Division?
I would not have asked this question if I did not think so. Although, maybe I've gotten the terms backwards. If anyone has a better term for what I'm about to say, I'd love to know it. Just because an idea has something that you do not like or is missing something that you want does not make the entire idea bad. I see this too often. Politicians consistently talk of what a proposal does not do instead of actually looking at what it would do. I think this tactic is a major contirbutor in the polarization of this country.
In terms of US policy, is a bird in the hand worth two in the bush?
Absolutely. I know this is America, but there is no need to get greedy in terms of US policy. Take what you can get and continue marching forward.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.