Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Political 'Center' and Compromise

  1. Jun 26, 2003 #1
    I was thinking...aren't the best things a government can do based on a view that neither the left nor right has all the answers? Isn't cooperation and a balanced view a good thing? Don't we lose something when we become so polarized with a sort of black/white perspective on everything?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 26, 2003 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    On the other hand, one might argue that each civil servant is bound to institute policy as he or she believes is best. What about the case where one side is right and the other side is wrong? Should those who are correct allow watered down policy in place of a known best solution? Of course, in the interest of getting things done, compromise is often the only true path to success. That's why someone once called politics "the art of what's possible".
     
  4. Jun 26, 2003 #3
    Re: Re: Political 'Center' and Compromise

    On the third hand(how many hands can we have?!?), representing the needs of everyone, not just the 1% who made serious campaign contributions, does not often have a single simple right answers. In most cases, the policy isn't 'watered down', it is just made to fit the most cases.

    I am reminded of a phrase that goes something like 'don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'...and I think it means that perfection is impossible, so let's not sacrifice the good we can do by chasing an unreasonable goal. For instance, the elimination of all terrorism would be a wonderful thing, but it is impossible. To resort to greater and greater losses of civil liberties to the point of America becoming a police state will not make terrorism go away completely, taking into account the law of diminishing returns.

    The same goes for gun control. Past a certain point, more regulation will not equal less crime, so why keep pushing? Compromise with the other side instead, and get their cooperation in implementing good ideas, instead of alienating them by pushing for 'perfect' ideas.
     
  5. Jun 27, 2003 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes.

    Though you may not believe it, I'm a fairly moderate conservative. Both sides tend to polarize on purpose to separate from the other side - I look at individual issues. There are a great many issues that both sides have extreme positions on simply because they want to distance themselves from the other party's position.

    Clinton was popular not only because of his charisma, but because he was pretty much considered (right or wrong) a political centrist. By contrast, in the last election, Bush was pushed to the nomination by the Republican party machinery despite John McCain's massive crossover appeal - he wasn't far enough to the right for the party.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2003
  6. Jun 28, 2003 #5
    Unfortunately, we are in a weird place no, in America. Most of us agree in general, but when we hit specific issues we get very polarized. On the one hand, some people demonize welfare, but at the same time they want to also destroy any program that might help people stay off welfare.
     
  7. Jun 28, 2003 #6

    kat

    User Avatar

     
  8. Jun 29, 2003 #7
    Well, we have no choice but to have some taxation. 'States' rights' is often a codeword for racism. The same people who say 'no government intrusion' in their lives don't mind if teh government attepts to force others to act like they want them to.
     
  9. Jun 29, 2003 #8

    kat

    User Avatar

    I'm sorry, but if this is in response to my post you're going to have to connect the dots for me, I don't see a direct correlation.
     
  10. Jun 30, 2003 #9
    Just the first sentence...
     
  11. Jun 30, 2003 #10

    kat

    User Avatar

    Zero- the key words were "and government bureaucracy " and as for "state rights" I don't know about were you live but here where I live "state rights" are usually in reference to unfunded mandates and/or federal bureaucratic pork heavy legislation that creates more paperwork then solutions, or those imposed by part of the good ole boy congressional clubhouse to line each others pockets, with us bearing the expense.
     
  12. Jun 30, 2003 #11
    Kat, let's not go to far off-topic, ok? Maybe we need a seperate states' rights thread?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Political 'Center' and Compromise
  1. Politics of Lebanon (Replies: 0)

  2. Political Academia (Replies: 11)

  3. Political Spin (Replies: 31)

  4. The Politics of Scale (Replies: 7)

Loading...