Compromise

[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.