Compromise

[Montmorency]

Don't understand your skepticism Monty...

Compromise is symptomatic of a healthy democratic political discourse. Increasing polarization in politics signals decreasing functionality of the body politic. Both in will to commit to projects that sustain the nation and in the analysis of options.

I don't see how that's necessarily true. It may be better described as getting shot at from all corners.

Why isn't compromise better understood as a last resort? There is no such thing as a "middle ground", and the rhetorical pursuit of it seems to routinely deny good government. See again, the parable of King Solomon and the mothers' dispute.

Bush/Clinton "tough" policies you talk about isn't a point against compromise, it is a point about the ability of the public to make bad decisions. Tough policies on border security was what the nation wanted at the time. The current leftist thought towards pro-immigration and diversity policies are a deviation from the pro-union leftist positions of the 90s which were strongly anti-immigrant.

I agree that Democrats have become less anti-immigrant since Bush, but I'm not familiar with a connection to "pro-union" positions.

That's part of my point though. Democrats from the 90s on - though really beginning with Carter's admin - abandoned a coherent picture of what government should look like and do for the sake of imagined, putative popularity and moderation. Compromise should be about acceding to the best you can get, not proactively selling its image for its own sake. Making compromise your brand and motivation surely means you have nothing to offer.


I expect this is in Seamus' professional bailiwick, so hopefully he can check in by the end of the month.