There's nothing weak about compromise.

There's nothing weak about compromise. There's nothing weak about reaching out to the other, listening to his or her words, and striving to discover common ground. There's nothing weak about casting aside stubborn ideology for discursive democracy and transcending one's basest natures to reach a greater idea. There's nothing weak about swallowing one's pride in order to reach a greater goal for a greater number of people.

Nuance isn't wobbliness. Nuance derives from earnest evaluation and thoughtful consideration. Nuance isn't the product of incapable decisiveness; it's about carving broader concepts into their parts, then their parts of parts, until the inner-fibers of the concept become clearer. Nuance permits one to render one's ideas historically, set within the context of the many fibers that created our lives yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Ahistoricity is the enemy of realistic self-assessment, and nuance permits us to avoid that terrible demon.

How much longer will many Americans climb out of the constricting box of angry, stubborn ideology and encounter the other in an effort to form the more functional idea? The weak ones are those who refuse to break themselves free from their ideological chains, who feel so comfortable with the cold shackles of irrepressible righteousness that they refuse to see any good in the other. One possesses strength - and true freedom - if one separates the rest of the world from oneself, discovering an entire world of thoughts, ideas, passions, and beliefs that are fully separate from his or her being. The world becomes a place to dwell in - not an extension of his suffering self.

And the entire world benefits.

I agree with the gist of your post though.

A society without a philosophy of compromise is perfect only to one, and unacceptable to everyone else.

So what are you doing on DU?
:P

They can be all those things you describe, or those you claim they are not. Some may even be in the middle. Let's not trade one knee-jerk absolutism for another.

I would argue that even something as emotionally divisive as abortion has its grey areas, too.

IMO given the dogmatic position of those on both sides, there can be no compromise on the issue of abortions.

The pro-choice position is enforced by government but the two sides have not compromised on the issue.

Another is the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) for self-defense protected by our Constitution.

There are some who want to ban all guns and others who want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

I don't see any compromise possible on RKBA when the only options are keep and bear arms versus ban arms.

Just an example

people in general don't like abortion

they don't like it when the issue gets complicated w/ things like late term abortions

but they want access to a safe procedure if their family needs it

Across the board, IMHO

e.g., Reagan signed the bill legalizing abortion in California before Roe v. Wade

react if the majority compromised on a first amendment right and banned free speech?

Inalienable rights enumerated in our Constitution and unenumerated rights covered by the 9th Amendment protect a minority even of IDEOLOGUES against the tyranny of a simple majority.

Not that we can't ascertain that indirectly, no siree.

The Constitution and the rule of law come to mind. I consider all who compromise that a political opponent of mine.

"half hearted?" The Size of the Stimulus Plan is MASSIVE and there's more to come

sure, it could have been better

Just like Lance Armstrong could pedal faster.

Mark McGwire could have hit more homeruns (if he'd only taken more steroids).

Michael Phelps could take more bong hits.

And Republicans could be principled (but I ain't holding my breath on that one).

The possible, much like the good is an enemy of "The Perfect" because the possible demands compromise. Surely, our lives would have been much easier had the republicans vanished in a puff of smoke after President Obama's election. Alas, that is not to be, and instead we must continue to deal with them, particularly in the Senate. Steamrolling the opposition is the mark of dictatorship and authoritarianism, not democracy.

K&R

Well, at least :kick: