There were two Possible Subjects suggested in the Comment Section of the Previous Post, "Just How Small Should a Government Be?". "Reaching the Uneducated" and "Excessive Gridlock verses Rushed Compromise". At least those were the Titles I was Considering. Also, as I was reading these Comments, I came across several other things that I could Expand upon as well.
Actually, the "Reaching the Uneducated" Subject is the one that most freely flowed when I sat down to write it out, but I sort of promised Soapboxgod that I would start with the second one, or at least one that had something to do with "Compromise".
I think I'm still working on formulating my ideas on the Subject of "Excessive Gridlock verses Rushed Compromise". The whole idea of "Extremism verses Moderation"/"Remaining Firm verses Compromise" is not Cristal Clear in my mind yet mostly because it reflects a shift in my thinking. Believe it or not, my thoughts have been moving more and more in the direction of things that I used to consider Extreme. I actually sort of surprised myself when I was talking to Repsac3 on one of his Post (Is it Just Me...) about the Tea Parties, Statism and Federalism, or put another way "the Sovereignty of the States" and also about People who are currently upset with both Political Parties.
I'm not going to say a whole lot more about it in this Post except to refer you to the Link I just placed in the above Paragraph. You can comment on it either here or over there. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm a little surprised that no one has commented on this one. I was rather hoping that either Soapbox or Griper would make a comment just so that I would know whether of not they think I'm on track, or is there still something that I've overlooked.
What I said on the Linked Post is one reason why the idea of Compromise is not such a good idea, for with the continuous movement towards Larger and Larger Government, there has far too much Compromise already. There may be some issues, though, that we can Compromise on. Like I said, my ideas on the whole issue of Compromise are still in Progress.
The reason I didn't comment is because this specific post was a bit of a hodge-podge of ideas you were circulating.
However, since I said I had something to say on the subject of compromise and the like, I will offer you this:
There are deep implications which come with the term "extremism". It is obvious that an uncompromising stand (on anything) is the actual characteristic which the term is used against. It is also true that there can be no compromise on basic principles, moral issues, matters of knowledge, truth, or of rational conviction.
If an uncompromising stand is smeared as "extremism", thaen that smear is directed at any devotion of values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, steadfastness, passion, or dedication to unbreached truth.
There can't be any meeting ground, or middle and no compromise between persons with opposite principles. Any "compromise" between two such things is the result of one of them surrending to their own principles and values.
Hi Soapbox,
Perhaps the word "Extreme" has become an "Emotionally Charged" word. I do usually try to avoid any language that is "Emotionally Charged", or that seems to evoke Emotion and Defensiveness in people, yet I have not been able to find a substitute term that fits with what I've been trying to say.
The Concept of Compromise is something that we do in order to make relationships work. One might say that there is really no way to compromise with someone whose beliefs run totally contrary to our own, yet since both Republicans and Democrats live here in this country, we have to find a way to live with one another.
Perhaps one way in which Compromise has been misunderstood is that there is a difference between Compromising ones own Beliefs and Principles on a personal level and between Compromising with other people. One way of Compromising is by allowing people to have Beliefs and Principles different than your own, even if you feel as if you "Know that they are wrong".
In a similar way, I do not use the word "Extreme" in order to put down someone who holds "Strong Convictions", even to the point in which they could never make any Compromises on any personal level, yet Compromising with another, by allowing them to disagree with you and even live their lives according to a totally separate set of Beliefs and Convictions, is very necessary in order to get along with people in this world.
I guess when I have used the word "Extreme", what I am really thinking about is "Extreme" Attitudes. When I think of "Extreme People" I think of people who are Dogmatic, Judgmental, Domineering, Pushy, Arrogant, and... well, you know the type.
They are not willing to Compromise, Display Humility or Bend in any way.
Usually when I use the word "Extreme", I am not referring specifically to the person to whom I am speaking at the moment, yet quite often people take offense the minute they hear the word. This can be frustrating when no offense, nor even accusation, was intended.
There is an interesting study of American political views (including the 42% centrists) at this site ..the usual demographics of age, ed, religion with which we are all familiar, but
a simple vector diagram about 1/3
down the page.
Thanks BB,
I'll take a look at this when I find time.
Well Ok. Maybe I could make a very quick comment about the first of the charts. If 61% do not favor Legalizing Gay/Lesbian Marriage, than why are the judges so bent on pushing this on us?
You Know, When I Read this Again, I Realized that it is just a "Hodge-Podge of Ideas", just as Soapbox Said. Let's see if I can Clarify as I Visit this Sight Again.
I was Struggling when I Wrote this because I was Writing as a Moderate and Expressing my Desire for Compromise, yet at the Same Time, I was also Frustrated because I did not Like the Extreme Nature of what the Democratic President, Obama, was Doing, for he was Trying to Cram a Highly Expensive Stimulus Package, and Later Health Care Bill, Down Our Throats and the Congress Men and Women were not Even Taking the Time to Read what they were Voting on.
Yes, that Happened in 2009.
Anyway, Under the Circumstances, the Need for Gridlock, rather than Compromise was Very Apparent, yet as a Moderate that had just Been Defending Vigorously the Idea of Compromise, I was Struggling in Knowing how to Explain the Necessity of Gridlock.
It's Really not that Hard, though. Just Like Anything Else, Compromise is Sometimes Beneficial and Sometimes not. To Say that we should NEVER Compromise is an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute. To Say the we should NEVER Refuse to Compromise, though, is also an Incorrect Extreme or Absolute and Absolutes are Rarely Ever Correct.
I just Said Something Interesting Recently on Someone's Blog, though, and it Goes Like This...
"As to Compromise, there is Really no Valid Reason for Walking All the Way Across a Bridge for the Sake of Someone who is not Willing to Walk even as little as a Quarter of the Way Across the Bridge."
Basically what this Means is that Compromise has to Go Both Ways and if there is no Compromise on the Other Side and One of the Two Parties has Already Walked to the Middle, then there can be no Further Compromise and Gridlock is what is Needed.
Also, Compromising too Soon is not Always what is Needed in Order to Accomplish the Greatest Benefit for your Own Position.
There. Now that is what the Original Post Should have Said.
Post a Comment