Compromise

[OldTrees]

1) It is possible to say lots of substance without making generalizations about people. You could make statements about theories and positions instead.
> true, but by my saying "I am a democrat and these are a bunch of things that i believe because democrats generally believe these things," allows you to generalise about what opinions I hold.

3) It should be possible to separate the vocal minority from the movement.

But in practice the headline grabbing actions of the vocal minority often drown out the more moderate main-stream, case in point Westboro Baptist Church;  most sane christians don't agree with their opinions on gays but because they make a controversial arguement they get the coverage disproportionate to their numbers.

I am an optimist with regards to people. I believe people have the intellectual and empathic capacity to 1) talk about ideas and 2) not use the vocal minority as a stereotype for the group.

[Belthus]

Ideologies do not make compromises with each other. They are not living agents. Human beings make compromises. Before making a compromise, it is best to have some notion of the trustworthiness and motives of the other side. If the other side seems trustworthy and genuinely interested in a mutually beneficial arrangement, then a compromise is worth pursuing. If not, then it is likely to be worthless or even harmful.

At the current point in time, I judge the opinion makers and elected officials of the Republican Party to be untrustworthy and not genuinely interested in a mutually beneficial agreement. These opinion makers and elected officials are supported by millions. I do not claim that being untrustworthy is always and irrevocably tied with being right wing. I simply say that at this point in time, those in positions of power and influence in the US right wing are untrustworthy.

[OldTrees]

Ideologies do not make compromises with each other. They are not living agents. Human beings make compromises.

Precisely why it is important to talk about ideas rather than positions. When we talk about positions, we are treating people like ideologies. When we do so we reduce the possibility for discussion and agreement. However when we separate ideas from the people we can discuss in a more objective manner and reach truth/agreement/compromise.

At the current point in time, I judge the opinion makers and elected officials of the Republican Party to be untrustworthy and not genuinely interested in a mutually beneficial agreement. These opinion makers and elected officials are supported by millions. I do not claim that being untrustworthy is always and irrevocably tied with being right wing. I simply say that at this point in time, those in positions of power and influence in the US right wing are untrustworthy.

So why not try to discuss with the millions rather than the few? The right wing is those millions not those few in positions of power.

[Belthus]

So why not try to discuss with the millions rather than the few? The right wing is those millions not those few in positions of power.

I do. But remember that those millions vote for those elected officials and keep the likes of Rush Limbaugh on the air. It's not as if the few at the top inherited their positions like royalty. Those opinion leaders got where they are because they represent millions.

[OldTrees]

So why not try to discuss with the millions rather than the few? The right wing is those millions not those few in positions of power.

I do. But remember that those millions vote for those elected officials and keep the likes of Rush Limbaugh on the air. It's not as if the few at the top inherited their positions like royalty. Those opinion leaders got where they are because they represent millions.

I have found most people that vote Republican or Democrat tend to do so because that is their team, not as a statement of agreement.

[mypetmachine]

When almost every member of one party (the GOP) who have been elected to national office have signed a pledge to an individual (Grover Norquist) to never raise taxes, an individual with a powerful PAC that will destroy the political careers of anyone breaking their pledge, compromise becomes impossible.

[Cheesy111]

When almost every member of one party (the GOP) who have been elected to national office have signed a pledge to an individual (Grover Norquist) to never raise taxes, an individual with a powerful PAC that will destroy the political careers of anyone breaking their pledge, compromise becomes impossible.

Compromise between the two parties can come in many different areas than just raising taxes.

[mypetmachine]

Quote from: mypetmachine on Today at 08:05:08 PM<blockquote>When almost every member of one party (the GOP) who have been elected to national office have signed a pledge to an individual (Grover Norquist) to never raise taxes, an individual with a powerful PAC that will destroy the political careers of anyone breaking their pledge, compromise becomes impossible.
</blockquote>


Compromise between the two parties can come in many different areas than just raising taxes.

True, but the point I was saying that more in terms of what Belthus had said regarding the Republican Party as being "untrustworthy and not genuinely interested in mutually beneficial agreement."  The GOP has made the budget deficit and the national debt their biggest issue since the advent of the Tea Party movement, but no serious effort can be made to address that issue without raising taxes in order to bring in additional revenue.  So, the GOP has made a pledge to not do one of the things necessary to address the issue that they have made the cornerstone of their campaigning against the current president and the Democratic Party.  That to me really drives home the point that they are "untrustworthy and not genuinely interested in mutually beneficial agreement."

[Cheesy111]

Quote from: mypetmachine on Today at 08:05:08 PM<blockquote>When almost every member of one party (the GOP) who have been elected to national office have signed a pledge to an individual (Grover Norquist) to never raise taxes, an individual with a powerful PAC that will destroy the political careers of anyone breaking their pledge, compromise becomes impossible.
</blockquote>


Compromise between the two parties can come in many different areas than just raising taxes.

True, but the point I was saying that more in terms of what Belthus had said regarding the Republican Party as being "untrustworthy and not genuinely interested in mutually beneficial agreement."  The GOP has made the budget deficit and the national debt their biggest issue since the advent of the Tea Party movement, but no serious effort can be made to address that issue without raising taxes in order to bring in additional revenue.  So, the GOP has made a pledge to not do one of the things necessary to address the issue that they have made the cornerstone of their campaigning against the current president and the Democratic Party.  That to me really drives home the point that they are "untrustworthy and not genuinely interested in mutually beneficial agreement."

The GOP considers the right way to address the budget deficit to be cutting government spending while lowering taxes.  Democrats generally want to raise taxes and increase government spending.  Both sides have goals that increase the deficit (lowering taxes, increasing gvt. spending) and both sides have ways to decrease that deficit (cutting spending, raising taxes).  Cutting government spending drastically or raising taxes drastically are both valid ways to raise money against the deficit.  Just because Democratic congressmen didn't take a pledge doesn't mean that they'll be eager to compromise on cutting entitlements, for example. 

[OldTrees]

Quote from: mypetmachine on Today at 08:05:08 PM<blockquote>When almost every member of one party (the GOP) who have been elected to national office have signed a pledge to an individual (Grover Norquist) to never raise taxes, an individual with a powerful PAC that will destroy the political careers of anyone breaking their pledge, compromise becomes impossible.
</blockquote>


Compromise between the two parties can come in many different areas than just raising taxes.

True, but the point I was saying that more in terms of what Belthus had said regarding the Republican Party as being "untrustworthy and not genuinely interested in mutually beneficial agreement."  The GOP has made the budget deficit and the national debt their biggest issue since the advent of the Tea Party movement, but no serious effort can be made to address that issue without raising taxes in order to bring in additional revenue.  So, the GOP has made a pledge to not do one of the things necessary to address the issue that they have made the cornerstone of their campaigning against the current president and the Democratic Party.  That to me really drives home the point that they are "untrustworthy and not genuinely interested in mutually beneficial agreement."

Consider a gambling addict:
We should not lend money to a gambling addict until that person gets control of their addiction. Otherwise we will only enable the problem.

There is a good reason to slow and finally halt all tax increases until the congress can prove it is in control of its spending addiction. We are at a point that enabling the cause of the deficit problem would be counter to our collective goal of solving the problem.

Now I should add that a more responsible pledge would be to refuse to raise taxes until spending is under control. (Perhaps even in the same bill)

[Belthus]

I have found most people that vote Republican or Democrat tend to do so because that is their team, not as a statement of agreement.

If they didn't agree more with one party than another, they would switch. So voting is a statement of agreement, though the number of issues makes it a package deal.

Besides, political compromises are made (or not made) by elected officials. It means nothing for me to "compromise" with someone on this forum. Thus, we are back to judging the trustworthiness of our representatives and those who have influence through the mass media. And I firmly believe that the Republican Party is willing to hurt the country knowingly for political gain. I won't argue issue by issue because I know it would be fruitless and frustrating, but suffice it to say that my convictions are based on much more than I write here.

[OldTrees]

I have found most people that vote Republican or Democrat tend to do so because that is their team, not as a statement of agreement.

If they didn't agree more with one party than another, they would switch. So voting is a statement of agreement, though the number of issues makes it a package deal.

Besides, political compromises are made (or not made) by elected officials. It means nothing for me to "compromise" with someone on this forum. Thus, we are back to judging the trustworthiness of our representatives and those who have influence through the mass media. And I firmly believe that the Republican Party is willing to hurt the country knowingly for political gain. I won't argue issue by issue because I know it would be fruitless and frustrating, but suffice it to say that my convictions are based on much more than I write here.

1) I do not consider "swayed by demagoguery and propaganda" to be the same as "agreeing with the ideology".

2) The easiest way to change the position of those only interested in political gain is to change the opinions of their supporters.