What exactly is wrong with being a moderate and trying to compromise?

Is compromise and bi-partisanship a dirty word among the far right and far left on the political spectrum?

unless you post here.

and take a look at the majority of posts on this thread. there's a time for compromise, multilateralism, etc.

now is not that time.

there is no compromise with fascism, and if you don't think bush co are neo-nazis, then i worry for you.

as long as your opposition is of like mind. If they're not - and they're not at present, nor have they been for thirty years - you might as well try to compromise with a hand grenade.

Where was it 20, 30, even 50 years ago?

That should answer your question.

See, there is a political 'left' and 'right', and compromise between the two is imperative. That's why this country was set up with checks and balances, so the compromise is forced, actually.

But right NOW, what we have is NOT 'left' and 'right'. The reason I referenced previous points in history is because when one learns what Nixon's policies were (Environmental Protection Agency, Minimum Wage, National Health Care), one realizes how FAR RIGHT we've moved, Democrats included.

When you consider just how FAR RIGHT we've moved, you realize that the idea of compromising from THIS position (which is undeniably to the RIGHT of center), you're really just making the problem worse.

The only option in a situation like this is to REFUSE to compromise to the ULTRA FAR RIGHT, because if you DO compromise, you're helping to make things WORSE, without exception.

do it. When you have too many extremists then it is really stupid.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

anybody who thinks otherwise will lead a very hard and disappointing life.

Opposing view points are heard, and compromises are worked out. Everybody walks away with something.

However, with the GOP describing bipartisanship as "date rape," this is no longer the case. With Democrats being excluded from caucuses and committee meetings, this is no longer the case.

The atmosphere in the capital has been tainted by religious zealotry and rabid ideological posturing, and that allows for no compromise.

And that, folks, is why we're where we are right now.

!

Well, we see it all the time...they roll over.

"submission," no problem.

However, when you always seem to be the one who has to give in, then it's time to consider putting up a fight.

Ever since Reagan got into office, the Democrats have been the ones making all the concessions. That's not compromise or bipartisanship: that's submission and cowardice.

That was the first thought that popped into my head when I saw this thread... Moderation and Compromise are all well and good, but both imply leading your cause or party and drawing people to your cause, rather than allowing one's cause or party to get steamrolled. One has to be able to remain strong (leading one's cause forward) while also negotiating to bring others in, without compromising key values.

Their convictions come from their religious fervor of being fundamentalists. They don't want compromise, they want you destroyed. Until their party changes to one willing to compromise, we have to be as strident.

Republican mantra..."Bi-Partisanship is like date rape."

"We used to be able to work with the Republicans, even when we disagreed with them. Now it's not enough to disagree with us--they want to make our lives miserable."

Compromise means we get something out of the deal. Accommodation means we give them exactly everything they want. That is what the DLC has been doing.

We need a progressive party. We already have the conservative party. Move on, or get off.

I think so.

I see the value of an absolutist stand and its limitations.

(ie: Act UP, in its time, spearheaded positive change for people with AIDS. Lots changed and so did the disease. Act UP no longer has as vital a role in the debate.)

And I think the absolute arguments of some progressives leave no room for broadening its base beyond a "counter" movement...in fact, hardens that base into a permanent "counter" movement, instead of looking at ways to build a bigger voice and a bigger effect on national politics.

The republican party at this moment is a big mean monster. They have no intention of compromising with you. They would rather eat you alive and spit you out. To compromise with them now is to give up any remaining democratic party ideals. Why not just join the republican party? It would be easier.

"Discourage litigation.
Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can.
As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man.
There will still be work enough."

He's finally figured it out.

Exactly.

You don't compromise with thugs and traitors...

At risk of being accused of absolutism, you can't. The truth is. There is no "my truth" and "your truth". There may be my perspective of the truth which may differ from yours. In that case, let's discuss things and get closer to the truth.

If there is only one truth, there is only one right thing to do in any particular situation. There's no guarantee that we will always, or even ever, discover what that thing is, but the only way to find out what it is is to try to figure out together.

As far as compromising with hard-right elites - should the slaves have compromised with the slave owners? Should gazelles compromise with jackals?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Plus, they are liars and compromises mean nothing to them.

You can't negotiate with liars.

consistently in one direction of the political spectrum, you are not a moderate.

You are a fool.