Compromise
To political ideologues, “compromise” is a four letter word. It means giving in; not standing on principle; even moral weakness. Two major issues in the news this week remind us why we’ve written so frequently on the topic here: it is one of the most controversial conceptual issues in all of public philosophy – ultimately getting to the core of how we approach politics.
At the UN-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen, world leaders, it seems, are punting on a number of tough issues including the proposed 2010 deadline for a binding treaty that environmental advocates claim is necessary to combat climate change. Back home, Senate leaders are struggling to compile a health care reform bill that will garner the 60 votes necessary to move ahead to a vote. In both cases, politicians who hold strong views on the issue at hand are being forced to make major compromises in order to get something done. On health care, compromises have been made to such a degree than some Democrats are claiming they will vote against the bill because it does not go far enough.
So what should we think about compromise? How much compromise is ok? Does it depend on the issue? On the political climate? Or is compromise never acceptable?
-Marc
Related posts:
- Compromise
- A tough climate
- President Obama and The New York Times must read this blog
- But if the Dems lose in November, was it worth it?
- Do the right thing
ShareComments
3 Responses to “Compromise”
Leave a Reply
[...] been talking a lot about the idealism vs. realism debate here at TPP – Is compromise necessary, and how much of it is admissible? How much should our political values be restrained [...]
[...] to Marc’s post on political “compromise,” Michelle Malkin outlines here and here the [...]
[...] one day after I posted on compromise and President Obama’s positions of health care and climate change, The New York Times goes and [...]