Well, the Previous Comment Thread is Getting Long, so it is Time to Post Again. Even trying to Summarize what is on the Previous Comment Thread has Led Up to a Rather Long Post, so I've Decided to Split it in Half.
If you have been Following the Previous Thread, you will Realize that Starting from the Third Comment (April 8, 9:42 PM) on Down to the 24th (April 12, 10:47 AM), we were discussing Analogies Relating to Compromise and Walking to the Middle of a Bridge, but Griper insisted that Bridges are Built for the Purpose of Getting us from One Side to the Other and are therefore not a Good Compromise Analogy. Eventually, a Platform was Added to the Middle of the Bridge with Stairs to the Bottom of the Canyon and a Helicopter Pad on Top of it (April 9, 2:02 PM). lol.
Various Different Analogies were Presented. Including Bridges over Canyons (April 9, 12:43 AM), over Streams (April 9, 2:02 PM), and Over a Stream at the End of a Lake (April 12, 12:54 AM). The Last of these was Actually a Dock, from which the Compromisers could Get into a Boat and have Multiple Directions to Choose From all Around the Lake. Not all Bridges are the Same, just as not all Situations are the Same. What was Under, On or Around the Bridge Depends on the Circumstances and how Many Options there are to Choose from, just as Sometimes the Choice is Black and White, Only One Way or the Other, and Other Times there are Many More Options than just Two.
Another Non-Bridge Analogy was Presented Later in which Two People Simply Walk Across to the Center of a Field and then Can Choice to Walk in Any Direction that they can Agree on (April 12, 12:02 AM). If you Want more Detail, then Please do Go Back and Read the Earlier Comment Thread.
BB-Idaho also Added Thoughts about Negotiation & Compromise, Defining Terms (April 9, 4:02 PM, April 13, 3:59 PM) and Giving Examples Relating to Rewards and Bribes (Bribing a Wife, April 9, 4:02 PM and Bribing a Pet, April 11, 7:46 AM).
I will be Reviewing these Definitions in my Next Post, which is Going to be the Second Half of the Summary of the Previous Comment Thread.
Even though the Title of this Post includes the Phrase "Relationship Analogies" and the Title of the Next One is More Compromise vs. Gridlock/Return to Politics, don't Think that this Post in not Also Meant to be about Politics, for the Whole Purpose of the Relationship Analogies was to Eventually Relate such Analogies to Politics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I have Moved Three Comments from Radar to this Post because the Previous Comment Thread that he Responded to was just too Long. I Chose this Post because he was making Comparisons between Relationships and Compromising in Politics and that is what this Post is About.
Radar said...
Lista,
I took your advice and have read the short post and the long comments thread and I see you have a couple of commenters that remind me of people I know!
Suppose we make this situational and real? In a couple of State legislatures, Democrats walked away from their jobs so there could be no quorum, thus blocking any activity by the State legislature at all. I consider that to be similar to going AWOL from work or the military. Normal workers get fired for not showing up. Soldiers get courts-martial or at least Article 15. So that behavior is just WRONG.
Seeking to find compromise on preferences in order to move along something we generally agree with makes sense. For instance, my wife prefers to drive to the mall using the main roads and I like to take the back country roads. My way has less traffic and gets you there faster. Her way is a shorter distance to travel. This kind of thing is not worth even arguing about. So we each drive the way we want to go when behind the wheel.
But suppose I want to go to the mall and she wants to go to a big combo store ten miles in the other direction? Now if I agree with her and let her have her way on this preference, I would expect she will tend to agree with me next time if I truly prefer to go the other way. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours? Typical in politics. To be continued...
April 26, 2011 9:25 PM
Here is the Second Comment from Radar...
Radar said...
But when the question is whether or not we should have a baby, it is a major decision and there is no room for compromise. It is either do or do not. In the case of Obamacare, I would have chosen to legally gridlock by accepted means (voting, filibustering, stopping something in committee, etc.) and allow the thing to remain in stasis NO MATTER WHAT because this would not be acceding to another's preference to be civil or hope for my preference next time, it is a fight over deeply-held beliefs!
The Republicans have legally tried to first block Obamacare in the legislature, and then are fighting it in the courts (since it is unconstitutional we should eventually win the fight) but the compromising holdouts who were lured to vote for Obamacare with a useless promise from Obama and a little somethin' somethin' were just appeasers, sell-outs, not men and women of honor.
The honorable man or woman does not compromise on principles and fights for their beliefs in legal ways. I abhor abortion but I would never attack an abortion doctor or clinic other than verbally. I detest Barack Obama and his socialist collectivist idiotic policies but I would not cause him physical harm.
So I commend compromise on preferences when it involves negotiation with people you can reasonably expect to give you a return on investment and I abhor compromise when it involves principle. If I could have arranged a filibuster that would have stopped Congress from passing ANY bill as long as Obamacare was defeated, I would have done it. I think next time the Republicans should let the Democrats "shut down" the government and stand firm for more aggressive cuts in the budget.
Oh, and in real life, I almost always let my wife win and only assert big dog status on rare occasion, because I love her and like to please her.
April 26, 2011 9:37 PM
You will Find Radar's Third Comment beneath the Post, Voting Third Party and Not Voting at All, for I discovered that that was more the Subject of his Third Comment.
You Know, Radar, I'm sort of Hoping for the Time to Read through some of the Comments on The Original Compromise vs. Gridlock Post Myself.
I Liked your Examples, Radar, and again can't say that I Disagree with anything.
As for the Example of whether or not to have a Baby, since this is Pretty Major and Forcing someone who does not want to have a Baby to both have and Raise one is no Small Thing to Ask, yet Depriving someone of the Right to have Children if they want them is also no Small Thing. This is why, this is the Sort of Thing that should be Talked about Prior to Marriage and not Afterwards.
If I was to Apply this to Politics, it could Lead to a Discussion of States Rights, for Every Time the Federal Government Forces itself and it's Rules on all of the States, it is Like a Forced Marriage and a Forced Compromise over things that very Possibly, each of the States should have the Right to Decide for themselves.
The Abortion Issue is this Way and it really Surprises me that More People do not Seem to Realize that all the Reversal of Roe vs. Wade would do is Return the Right to Make this Decision back to the States.
I Agree with what you said about not Compromising so Readily on "Deeply-Held Beliefs". I even Agree with you in Relation to those who Sold Out in Relation to the Issue and that even now, the Congressmen should have Held more Firm and Allowed the Government to "Shut Down" for the Sake of more Aggressive Cuts, or at the Very Least, the Defunding of Planned Parenthood and/or the Abolishment of Obama Care.
To me, it seems that the Democrats did not Offer any Compromise at all.
You see, it really surprises me the extent to which I Agree with you because I've always Considered myself a Moderate that Believes in Compromise, but in my Opinion, the Democrats have Taken Things Way too Far and it is their Turn now to Compromise.
There is so very much that I could Say about this, yet like is so Often True, I have Limited Computer Time.
Post a Comment