Can't We All Just Get Along?
Aaron Miller ·
March 20, 2012 at 4:35pm
Someone recently said to me that she intended to take a break from the news and TV because politics is stressing her out. She said she would return to the news after the elections, when "the country won't be so crazy for a couple of years and we can all just work together."
That last part kills me. It's a very common sentiment, and yet it seems so blatantly thoughtless. Whether liberal or conservative, if you believe the other side is wrong, why would you want to compromise and support half-wrong actions?
Compromise is fine and dandy when the two (or more) sides of the debate are not diametrically opposed. But let's be honest. Nobody truly wants to compromise with injustice and tyranny, however one defines them.
- Comment (28)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Compromise is most possible when the argument is one of strategy, not principle. Compromise on principle only happens when one or more sides go wobbly on principle.
The Rodney King appeal to the political class is revealing: people are indeed accepting of government rule over their lives.
Jul '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
It annoys me too. Everytime I hear it, I say, "Hey, if you want 'unity' and want to just 'get along,' go to a place where there is no division or debate! Saudi Arabia...North Korea...China...Enjoy!"
May '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Whenever I hear the line, I think of Deuteronomy: "I set before you life and death...choose life that you and your children may live."
When the battle is over such fundamentals, compromise is capitulation.
May '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Well said, Jim.
A corollary of that appeal is the common call for a more "moderate" or "centrist" political party. Such a desire implies approval of big government, because both parties regularly expand government authority and spending.
Sep '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
The Soviet Union was very unified until it fell apart. If she wishes to sit on the fence, she should watch out for a falling wall.
Jan '11
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
There's an op-ed in Politico this morning written by three "moderates" (David Boren, Christine Whitman, William Cohen) pleading for national unity. Needless to say, I'm unimpressed.
Politics (and compromise) is always about mixed motive strategy: namely, when we have specific interests and common interests, how can we maximize our individual desires without harming our common needs? The calls for compromise usually come when people fear that we're threatening our common needs because we're selfishly pursuing personal interests.
But that isn't the case here. This struggle is about common interests. More precisely, it's about what the true common interests are.
Liberals think that every human need (healthcare, housing, now even condoms) is a "common interest." Conservatives see a very narrow set of tasks (national defense, for one) that are truly common interests.
Jul '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
The day We "work together" is the day you agree with Me for what We are working.
Aug '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Oh man, oh man, oh man, do I identify with this thread. On a daily basis the MSM up here in Canuckistan laments the lack of "civility" and "compromise" in the House of Commons.
Firstly, it isn't true. There's plenty of compromise on various issues and the place is the most civil it's been in over 125 years.
Secondly, it isn't advisable when the parties are so diametrically-opposed on matters of principle.
Aug '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
When politicians stop fighting each other it merely means they've agreed to start fighting us.
May '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Please tell me you urged her to also not vote since she is dedicating herself to not knowing anything about current events come November.
Mar '11
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Actually, your friend (likely unknowingly) has something of a point: lame duck sessions have become some of the most productive legislative periods, with (relatively) little partisan bickering.
Which demonstrates a problem with being uncompromising: certain decisions must be met to keep the state from collapsing. When voters demand that their chosen elected officials stay pure on every issue all the time, these necessary compromises occur under the cloak of darkness, when no one is paying attention to politics.
The unintended consequence of uncompromising partisanship is that many important legislative duties are now performed surrepititiously to fool the electorate into thinking they didn't happen.
Mar '11
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Because you believe the status quo is worse.
Because sometimes the majority is against you and not compromising means having no input whatsoever.
Because no one wins in a game of chicken if both sides refuse to flinch.
May '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
That's ignorance talking.
The ignorance that doesn't recognize how opposite the goals of different political movements are, that instead sees them as merely engaging in unnecessary bickering.
The ignorance that would rather be soothed by a nanny-state tyrant who tells them that everything will be taken care of.
The same kind of ignorance that Obama manipulated in 2008, offering "hope" and "change" and claiming that he would heal our country and bring an end to divisiveness.
It's exasperating that people can be so ignorant. But it's even more exasperating that in their ignorance, they vote.
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 4:56pmMay '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
I despise accusations of "purist" politics. Nobody is saying there are not issues on which we can and should compromise. But a person who is willing to compromise on anything is a coward and a fool. Peace is not worth any price.
Mendel
certain decisions must be met to keep the state from collapsing.
Like passing a budget? Apparently not.
Gridlock, under current circumstances, means unimpeded expansion of government authority and spending. Our course has already been set and the momentum is strong. Stopping and turning around will require assertive counteraction.
May '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
See, the problem here, Aaron, is that you believe the other guys are "wrong". That makes it confrontational. Why don't you just admit that all political parties want all the same Good Things for The People, and merely disagree on how to achieve them? That would go a long way to helping the Republicans overcome their obstructionist tendencies.
/sarcasm
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 9:13pmMar '11
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
I do agree with you there. For me, the important difference is between the concepts of "working together" and "getting along." Buyers and sellers work together in an Indian market by haggling - but they most certainly do not get along with each other. "Can't we all be friends?" has no place in politics.
At the same time, the bases of both parties have made it a sin for their elected officials to be seen voting for any measures which shares support with the other party. That is a perfect recipe for our downfall.
Oct '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Well, it depends which Democrat you compromise with. A few New Democrats still exist, especially in the Senate. Their numbers have dwindled, however, and are likely to shrink further in the 2012 election. In that sense, Aaron, you are correct--there may not be enough centrist Democrats left to craft compromises favorable to the center-right.
Mar '11
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Aaron Miller:
Mendel
certain decisions must be met to keep the state from collapsing.
Like passing a budget? Apparently not.
How about raising the debt ceiling? Republicans promised from day one that they would take the hardest line possible on not raising it, or at least extract tough budget cuts in exchange. Now we have a higher debt ceiling and fantastical "mandatory" cuts that might, if we're lucky, take place sometime around 2045.
May '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Agreed, Joseph. I'm not against Democrats without regard to what individual Democrats represent. Their party needs fundamental reform as much as our party — and America will only survive if both are reformed. Both parties have come to promote expansive, centralized government.
But someone must be blind not to see significant differences between the two parties.
Because that's not true; not in any meaningful sense, anyway. Stalin and his communist comrades wanted a strong Russia, as did more sensible and considerate Russians. Who cares? Agreement on vague principles like "Be excellent to each other" gets us nowhere.
A liberal's idea of charity is stealing one person's property to give it to another. A liberal's idea of tolerance is us embracing their ideas or remaining silent. The only freedom liberals respect is freedom to obey them.
We are not haggling over peripheral issues. We are fighting over the fundamental identity of this nation.
May '10
Re: Can't We All Just Get Along?
Mendel
How about raising the debt ceiling? Republicans promised from day one that they would take the hardest line possible on not raising it, or at least extract tough budget cuts in exchange. Now we have a higher debt ceiling and fantastical "mandatory" cuts that might, if we're lucky, take place sometime around 2045.
Republicans should not have compromised on the debt ceiling (as I said before they did). That was a strategic decision, though, so perhaps it is different than backing down on something like abortion or the limits of executive authority.
Republicans have steadily ceded individual liberty for a century. When represented by simpletons, give simple orders: "Hold your ground."