Originally posted by Zero
I was thinking...aren't the best things a government can do based on a view that neither the left nor right has all the answers? Isn't cooperation and a balanced view a good thing? Don't we lose something when we become so polarized with a sort of black/white perspective on everything?
On the third hand(how many hands can we have?!?), representing the needs of everyone, not just the 1% who made serious campaign contributions, does not often have a single simple right answers. In most cases, the policy isn't 'watered down', it is just made to fit the most cases.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
On the other hand, one might argue that each civil servant is bound to institute policy as he or she believes is best. What about the case where one side is right and the other side is wrong? Should those who are correct allow watered down policy in place of a known best solution? Of course, in the interest of getting things done, compromise is often the only true path to success. That's why someone once called politics "the art of what's possible".
Yes.Originally posted by Zero
I was thinking...aren't the best things a government can do based on a view that neither the left nor right has all the answers? Isn't cooperation and a balanced view a good thing? Don't we lose something when we become so polarized with a sort of black/white perspective on everything?
Originally posted by Zero
Unfortunately, we are in a weird place no, in America. Most of us agree in general, but when we hit specific issues we get very polarized. On the one hand, some people demonize welfare, but at the same time they want to also destroy any program that might help people stay off welfare. [/QUOTE}
Actually, I think most americans agree on goals but disagree on the best route to take in achieving them. Many see taxation and government bureaucracy as effective ways to reach these goals. Others see large government bureaucracy as wasteful, intrusive, inefficient and would prefer localized, community and personal responsibity approaches to issues. Then again there are others who see every issue as an opportunity to evoke their own personal agendas upon others. Of course putting all of these people together to resolve issues should be in itself a way to find compromise and moderation and maybe, comparitively speaking it has.
Originally posted by Zero
Well, we have no choice but to have some taxation. 'States' rights' is often a codeword for racism. The same people who say 'no government intrusion' in their lives don't mind if teh government attepts to force others to act like they want them to.
Originally posted by kat
I'm sorry, but if this is in response to my post you're going to have to connect the dots for me, I don't see a direct correlation.
The political center refers to a position or ideology that is seen as moderate or centrist, falling between the more extreme left and right positions. It is often associated with compromise and finding common ground between different political ideologies.
Compromise is necessary in politics because it allows for progress and effective decision-making. In a diverse society, there will always be differing opinions and priorities. Compromise allows for all parties to have their voices heard and find a middle ground that can satisfy the majority.
Compromise can be seen as a weakness by some, as it may require individuals or parties to give up some of their own beliefs or values. However, it can also be seen as a strength, as it shows a willingness to listen and work together towards a common goal.
There is no set limit to compromise in politics, as it depends on the specific issues and the individuals involved. However, some may argue that compromising on certain core values or principles can be detrimental in the long run.
Encouraging more compromise in politics requires open-mindedness, effective communication, and a willingness to find common ground. It also requires a political culture that values collaboration and problem-solving rather than division and polarization.