Compromise

[Pannonian]

Health warning, not sure if this attribute represents correlation or causation; it could easily be the case that consensual politics people tend to be liberal (in the american sense), and thus fall foul of Jonathan Haidt's rule vis-a-vis liberals and conservatives, i.e. that latter understand the former than is true vice versa.

And where do conservative liberals figure in this? Ie. people who like the liberal world that we live in, and feel no particular need to roll things back to some mythical golden age. And what about those like myself who believe in the socialism of responsibility, with a society that enables individuals to take responsibility for themselves and for their community. That stipulates low level action by low level governments that necessarily requires consensus. But that kind of low level consensus politics has been marginalised in favour of high level government that overrides anyone that disagrees with the winning side, based on ivory tower political theory and demonisation of social groups. I don't give a toss about abstract liberty that requires the Commons to stomp over every other form of government. I want more bike racks and better public transport.

[rory_20_uk]

In First Past the Post, the first rule is to design a position that captures the required number of seats. The second is to then divide into safe seats and "marginals". Then ignore all the safe and "lost" seats, and concentrate on the marginals. Do whatever they want to keep power. Build ships in Glasgow we don't need? Done if they hopefully will vote Labour. Offer to torture animals to death in the countryside? If that's what keeps the marginal Shires blue so be it.

Any disagreement in government is viewed in terms as "fractures" or other such terms. FPTP creates false monoliths where discussion and dissent are all but outlawed. Leaders to change allow this or God forbid change their mind are weak and are undertaking U turns.

Low level politics in England remains FPTP with the MP locally elected having almost no role to play in the local area, yet those who remain local are barely known to anyone. This all but destroys anyone caring about local politics.

Occasionally Central Government tries to make things at a more local level. Historically the issue has been there is then variance and some things might work better in some places than others. This is generally blamed on the central government and no one seems to listen that they have no control. The latest iteration might work better since they have installed local lightening rods (or Mayors) who can be held accountable for this. And local government tend to be more inclusive since ideals are less important than the bins being collected.

The UK I am informed is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, and this is a Good Thing. I am not sure when the Plebiscite was on this, but I clearly missed the memo. I'm all for the former, but against the latter. I really dislike having to look at France with envy.

Everyone has to not just tolerate each other but actively like each other, as this is a Good Thing. To not do a Good thing makes you a Bad Person and an Intolerant Xenophobe who with absolutely no irony can therefore be Prosecuted.

However, Sunnis view Shi'ites as heretics. Catholics (especially) view all other denominations as heretics. I even had a friend at University who thought that heterosexual sex was disgusting - he was gay. At work most of the African people I worked with actively disliked those from the Caribbean and vice versa - one of the latter stating "I'm not Afro-Caribbean - I'm no f*cking African!"

I would view a compromise as for people to tolerate each other - but then I am agnostic. I am not sure how one can be deeply religious in one of the more... literal religions and be expected to get on with those one's religion has said to at the very least shun.

[Montmorency]

Far be it from me to deny you guys the opportunity to speak from a personally-relevant perspective, but I wanted to hear about:

What's so great about compromise, and why isn't it considered a last resort in the exhaustion of other options? Why is the mere presence of compromise, rather than the content or subject, valorized?

When did compromise become an end of government (particularly legislative activity) in itself, at least in the rhetoric of pretty much all politicians and mainstream media?

[Pannonian]

Far be it from me to deny you guys the opportunity to speak from a personally-relevant perspective, but I wanted to hear about:

When did compromise become an end of government (particularly legislative activity) in itself, at least in the rhetoric of pretty much all politicians and mainstream media?

Compromise may not be a desirable end in and of itself. But it's a good indicator that anyone that is unwilling to compromise is someone you wouldn't want ruling over you. A shibboleth, if you like.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh, that's easy!

The old example of there being two ice cream sellers on a beach. Long story short they end up very close to each other in in the middle - as long as you are nearer more of the target audience than the other lot more will like you / hate you less than the other lot. And on average you'll win. So those that stick to principles will get nowhere unless this happens to be closer to more of the target audience.

[Montmorency]

Compromise may not be a desirable end in and of itself. But it's a good indicator that anyone that is unwilling to compromise is someone you wouldn't want ruling over you. A shibboleth, if you like.

What if the party or politician you choose to represent you decides, say, that they would be willing to negotiate the privatization of most public services to foreign low-bid contractors according to the "practical" reasoning that this can be traded in exchange for raising maximum penalties on regulatory violators by 5%? That's certainly one way of getting results, after all.

Oh, that's easy!

The old example of there being two ice cream sellers on a beach. Long story short they end up very close to each other in in the middle - as long as you are nearer more of the target audience than the other lot more will like you / hate you less than the other lot. And on average you'll win. So those that stick to principles will get nowhere unless this happens to be closer to more of the target audience.

I don't think real life corresponds well to this example. The beach goers have many different preferences, more or less malleable, and may exist in three-dimensional space around the beach plane.

Regardless, as I said, yeah?

a last resort in the exhaustion of other options

And what if sometimes defending principles is likelier to get you results than accepting just about anything in the name of "pragmatism".

Fight as hard as possible, only then settle?

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think real life corresponds well to this example. The beach goers have many different preferences, more or less malleable, and may exist in three-dimensional space around the beach plane.

And what if sometimes defending principles is likelier to get you results than accepting just about anything in the name of "pragmatism".

Fight as hard as possible, only then settle?

The example is static, one dimensional. Of course real life is dynamic, and multi-dimensional. That is why parties often move what they stand for and what they do stand for can have odd statements in it as they carve out niches that make sense in the particular election they are standing for. Corbyn is getting a mass of flack since Labour MPs can see many votes in just being anti-Brexit with the added bonus they might never have to follow through whereas Corbyn is sticking to something called his "principles" which only confuses career MPs.

For any matter, often it is the time frame one looks at that determines what the "best" approach is: Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely. Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way. Whilst pragmatically the Allies teamed up with a power they had been at the very least hostile to since its inception - where before they had not allied with for idealistic reasons.

Depending on the time frame and the outcomes you focus on either idealism or pragmatism could be shown to be good or bad.

[Pannonian]

The example is static, one dimensional. Of course real life is dynamic, and multi-dimensional. That is why parties often move what they stand for and what they do stand for can have odd statements in it as they carve out niches that make sense in the particular election they are standing for. Corbyn is getting a mass of flack since Labour MPs can see many votes in just being anti-Brexit with the added bonus they might never have to follow through whereas Corbyn is sticking to something called his "principles" which only confuses career MPs.

For any matter, often it is the time frame one looks at that determines what the "best" approach is: Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely. Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way. Whilst pragmatically the Allies teamed up with a power they had been at the very least hostile to since its inception - where before they had not allied with for idealistic reasons.

Depending on the time frame and the outcomes you focus on either idealism or pragmatism could be shown to be good or bad.

If Corbyn had stuck to his principles, he'd never have pretended to be for Remain whilst doing the minimum he could leading a party that was decisively (super-majority) pro-Remain. If leading a pro-Remain party was against his principles, he should have let someone else do that job instead. If he doesn't want to lead the Loyal Opposition against the government, he should stop taking money as Leader of the Opposition and let someone else do it instead. And as for career politicians; there are few in the Commons who've been there as long as Corbyn has.

[Montmorency]

<snip>

The historical example is a muddle.

Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely.

I don't see the applicability or relevance. "Pacifism", i.e. not preemptively attacking Germany, was driven by the pragmatic understanding that no one was ready for a Continental war, and that war was very expensive in all senses. What ideals bankrupted Germany?

Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way.

The ideal of not finishing off World War 2 with a total war against a Eurasian superpower? And as I recall, Britain came off best when it accepted the situation and used diplomacy to secure its interests instead of fighting rearguard wars of attrition like Indochina or Algeria (or Kenya). Would you call Eden's grab for the Suez Canal an example of idealism or pragmatism, given the greater care afforded to dreams of imperial glory over the facts on the ground?

If Corbyn had stuck to his principles, he'd never have pretended to be for Remain whilst doing the minimum he could leading a party that was decisively (super-majority) pro-Remain. If leading a pro-Remain party was against his principles, he should have let someone else do that job instead. If he doesn't want to lead the Loyal Opposition against the government, he should stop taking money as Leader of the Opposition and let someone else do it instead. And as for career politicians; there are few in the Commons who've been there as long as Corbyn has.

If Corbyn didn't, he should have laid out his vision vis-a-vis Europe and why he disagreed with the party line. Has he avoided playing his cards? I don't want to have to look this up for myself, but you harp about it so frequently I may just have to.

If it is valorized or preferred, it either has to do with the 1) status quo or 2) resistance to compromise as counterpoints, the latter being unhealthy for a healthy democratic process. It has always been evaluated the same way you would judge a law or policy. If it’s a given that the goal is political prudence, compromise is sought for when it is perceived to come closest to it.

It's tough to discuss the abstract in length. I have no idea what or where we are talking about.

It's definitely a status-quo favorable value.

You have to be familiar with American political culture.

I could find a bunch of quotes from politicians and media to illustrate this, but basically the idea is that contemporary American politicians spread rhetoric about how good they are at compromise, how the other side is bad at compromise, how compromise is really important, and how the people want compromise. Then the media amplify these points, with the effect that people come to expect that "compromise" is something they are looking for in Congress and politicians.

I don't believe it was like that in the 19th century, and compromises of that era were sweeping affairs that involved intense competition between strong, irreconciliable positions (and often devolved into bitter acrimony).

I think compromise is often the goal in the sense that people

a) know that compromise is the only way to get anything because the opposition is well-known

b) as some kind of shortcut due to a, why state positions the other side won't agree with anyway if one can work on a practicable solution right away?

c) because people believe that everyone's interests should be served to some extent in a democracy and it has become common belief that compromise is the best and sometimes only way to recognize everyone's needs. Taking everyone's needs into account is seen as valuable and laudable, therefore compromise is valuable and laudble.

And "getting things done" faster is also seen as valuable and laudable.

In general I would guess compromise is preferred by risk-averse people, i.e. the mainstream, because they don't want to go all or nothing if nothing is a 90+% likely outcome.

I feel like my OP addresses this.

Cutting through, compromise is often against the interests of the majority of the population, even majorities of different groups represented by parties. Like the Democrats and Republicans during Bush and Clinton terms on border security. They compromised between "tough" and "tougher" policy, resulting in multiply compounding crises today. Like presently with the Social Democrats and the Conservatives in Sweden. Though the vast majority of the population reports a desire for higher taxes in exchange for more social services, both parties have issued assurances that taxes will only be cut, not raised. Thereafter, the compromise is over just how much to lower tax rates. Meanwhile, immigration is scapegoated for the decline of social services and welfare chauvinism infects popular discourse.



"Your money or your life!"
I give you my wallet.

Compromise...

Even the Bible acknowledged the irony inherent to compromise:

1 Kings 3:16–28 recounts that two mothers living in the same house, each the mother of an infant son, came to Solomon. One of the babies had been smothered, and each claimed the remaining boy as her own. Calling for a sword, Solomon declared his judgment: the baby would be cut in two, each woman to receive half. One mother did not contest the ruling, declaring that if she could not have the baby then neither of them could, but the other begged Solomon, "Give the baby to her, just don't kill him!"

The king declared the second woman the true mother, as a mother would even give up her baby if that was necessary to save its life. This judgment became known throughout all of Israel and was considered an example of profound wisdom.

It is so critical to understanding the present day that one recognizes the parallels to the political Left.