March 2, 2013
-
Politics and compromise
Politics has been described as the art of making the Institution of Government work – especially in a democracy. A basic political theme seems to be that of compromise between the political representatives in the governing body – usually to keep the government running smoothly and to achieve its responsible goals.
Do you think elected representatives should vote their political party’s beliefs without compromise, or should they first consider their government’s responsibilities and ability to perform its responsible goals? What should happen when these beliefs and goals come into conflict? Should the representatives attempt compromise even when it violates some of their political party’s basic agenda and beliefs?
Why, or why not?
Comments (4)
Let’s see, I want to amputate all your limbs and you won’t compromise and at least allow me to remove two? Shame on you! lol
@soccerdadforlife - Believe it or not that was a serious question – In many countries politics too quickly degenerates into hard-line bickering. Is politics the art of government compromise or isn’t it?
@Socrates_Cafe - And, believe it or not, I gave a serious answer. It’s called an argument to absurdity. What you should have taken away, assuming that you were literate, is that some compromises are unacceptable at any level.
In a two-party system such as that of the US, with limited power to recall, how can opposing parties settle their differences if one or the other party insists that it cannot compromise? What it boils down to, IMHO, is that there comes a time when the culture/nation’s Basic Values must be considered over the niceties of political orthodoxy.
To comment on Soccerdad’s remarks: Sometimes it is loose two of your limbs for the greater good – I’m thinking of all those Draftees who lost more than a limb or two during World War II.