sorry, I was to distracted by your epic sig.
so, for example, as an adherent of The Great Faith of Rum-ism, my god tells me to convert the whole world, and kill those who disagree. you, are not a Rumist, and have no intention of becoming one. Me saying you will, you saying you will not; outside of you saying "okay, kill me", there's not alot of room for compromise there.
Or, consider the question of abortion - and what a fun topic that is. One side is dedicated wholeheartedly to the notion that women should not have their bodies and reproduction controlled by others, and one side is dedicated wholeheartedly to the notion that children should not be killed when they become inconvenient. Now, both sides accuse the other of opposing their motive, but in reality both sides are opposed to the notion of government control of our personal medical decisions (think of the overlap between opponents of abortion and opponents of the health insurance mandate), and both sides are generally opposed to the notion of killing children when they become inconvenient. The question at the heart of the matter is non-compromisable, because it is binary. Is the life being extinguished a human child, or not? It is or it isn't - your identity can't be "somewhat of a human child" or "a human child on even numbered days, but not on odd numbered days." And so Abortion remains a heated, non-long-term compromisable debate; because the assumptions are mutually exclusive.
Sometimes compromise is possible - but only really when the assumptions are not mutually exclusive, but rather exist on a scale. So, for example, we agree that the state has a role to play in ensuring that all children are educated, but differ on how to go about providing it - we can find compromise within that spectrum. But increasingly our political process has come to offer us two mutually contradicting worldviews about how we should and do interact with each other. This election is going to be a real "ideology" election in a sense that we haven't had in a while, I think. Not since Reagan, really.
ďIf we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.Ē
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
What he's talking about is compromise - you can't have everything you want but you can at least decide what's most important and devise a plan that tries to find a middle ground.
Unfortunate thing is that many people don't want compromise - they want *their way* or *no way*
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but I think that many people oppose compromise because the two parties have become so diametrically opposed in their core goals that to compromise would be the same as letting the other side win.
That, and some people believe so strongly in X position that to compromise it would be to compromise their very nature. Or something like that.
For myself, I tend to have very few hard positions – but gun rights is one. In my ideal world, the fewest gun laws possible is ideal.
None would be best, but that is, I think, impossible. Humans being humans.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller