Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:05 PM
kentuck (71,472 posts)
Is the need for "bi-partisanship" a character flaw??
We see Democrats and a few Republicans talk about "bi-partisanship" as if it were the magic key to fix everything wrong in Washington. But is it?
Why should anyone want to seek common ground or meet someone halfway on something they believed was evil or wrong for our country? "We have to be willing to compromise", they say.
Why can't we all just get along, they seem to be asking? But, in the end, does this make things better or worse? Does it simply confuse the voters even more? Why not just take a stand and let the voters decide if they agree with you or your opponents?
Is this form of groveling a character flaw? Does it go back to childhood where they wanted everyone to like them and would give up their school lunch if they could play ball with the rest of the group? Are these the present-day "bi-partisan" politicians??
4 replies, 465 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Is the need for "bi-partisanship" a character flaw?? (Original post)
Response to kentuck (Original post)
Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:16 PM
frazzled (12,059 posts)
2. Is rigid adherence to an intractable ideology a character flaw?
It stems from primal urges of the egotistical and spoiled child, who insists upon getting his way every time, or he throws a tantrum, stopping down everything. This child, unless assisted in his development, will remain at this regressive, selfish state and fail to accomplish anything ... for the world does not cohere to his individual wants and immediate needs every time.
Do you see how stupid such arguments about character flaws are?
If bipartisanship has its faults, I think that the last 4 years of Republicans' immovable adherence to their own philosophy, refusing to give up a single inch unless they get their way all the time (and failing to recognize that not everybody agrees with them), has been far worse. It has led to total paralysis and the inability to move forward in any way. Do you suggest that we behave with equal intractability, refusing to compromise ever, and always assured that we are 100% right? Even at the risk that we will get nothing if we do so?
So no, I don't agree with your analysis. In politics as in life, we must compromise when necessary, yet always reserving that bright line beyond which compromise is not an option. Moving too far in either direction (compromise or obstinacy) is not productive.