On that particular issue, yeah. In general, no. If it's the issue itself then that means there's potential for compromise on other issues. If it's the other party then there's no hope for compromise at all.
The Culture War
- Thread starter version
- Start date
Leo
Well-known member
first off, as witnessed by the convention, there is no GOP platform. it's just a cult of personality.
think of people like Marco Rubio or mitt Romney. they have certain positions on which they wouldn't compromise -- Rubio with his stance on Cuba, mitt on abortion, etc. -- but there are other areas where they have a record of compromise in order to get things done. at least they aren't shitheels to the extent of Lindsay graham, who went from John mccann's right hand man to major trump asskisser in less than a year. and then there are MAGA types like Jim Jordan who will never want to budge an inch.
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Obviously this is valid.
But what if that-which-they-are-hoping-for can be preserved, just expressed in a way other than the decimation of the world? That is, a compromise not between the arguments as they are expressed, but a compromise between the essences of arguments, in other expression?
Unless nihilism has staked its claim in our psychic bedrock, permanently, then I doubt the other half of us want decimation for its own sake. Perhaps what they want almost necessarily (99.99999%) leads to decimation as such, but that doesn't mean that what they want is identical to decimation as such. There has to be a way for their ends to be met, effectively, without leading to decimation. Even if it is an asymptotically narrow window to land in. Short of that, some kind of war.
We're in a bind. Clearly. People have been sounding the alarm for decades, if not longer. Scientists even, whose voices we otherwise tend to place above all else.
I'm not arguing that we need to respect the beliefs and arguments of denialists as such, but I am arguing that we need to respect that lies at the heart of their beliefs and arguments - that around which their beliefs and arguments are erected imperfectly as scaffolding - that which has been corrupted by corporate interests who actually have almost every horse in the race
The question is not how do we force our way over theirs - that is the fallback, absolute last resort option (which we have arguably arrived at). The question is: how can the essence of that half of the argument be expressed in ways that are not empirically delusional? This would take, seemingly, someone who can appeal to the abstract roots of the conservative value system, and express those values in a more informed and cooperative manner.
Perhaps the central obstacle is how parochial many of their lives are - and yes, I am (at least provisionally) indulging in stereotyping. How can they appreciate, yet alone fight, issues that are completely invisible to them? Especially when the solution of these, to them, alleged issues appears to come at the cost of their livelihood? This is how ugly and knotted up the situation is. The giants with enough at stake, and a tall enough platform to stand on, saw an opportunity to tilt things in their favor, and did it effectively.
So we don't, shouldn't, and frankly cannot compromise with their arguments (as @luka and others plainly pointed out, there is little to no logical room for them to budge - they have nowhere deeper to retreat to, no land to lose).
Instead, we compromise with, and appeal to, that which lies upstream from their arguments: fear, need for security, and other perfectly valid things that, if given full reign, tend to hijack ones ability to reason.
Or, we fuel our respective engines until they collide.
Leo
Well-known member
that's really not true, there are things for them to agree on. a few months ago when everything started to shut down and unemployment skyrocketed, both parties knew they had to do something to help. they negotiated and compromised to come up with a small business grant program and $1,200 stimulus payment to eligible citizens. neither side got the level of support they wanted, but they debated, reconciled and compromised to get it done in a bipartisan vote.
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Granted, its a beyond desperate effort, but do you think that, if the proper figure were to arise, that enough republicans could muster the courage to abstract their values from their party and migrate to greener lands? If enough do this, the big other that is the party becomes much less big.
If it is just a matter of the proper figure arising, then we just need to set the right culture for them to emerge/blossom.
Valorize compromise.
If it is just a matter of the proper figure arising, then we just need to set the right culture for them to emerge/blossom.
Valorize compromise.
constant escape
winter withered, warm
I've got faith that our species, with its collective techne, will stumble upon a synthesis.
Leo
Well-known member
then we have to hope the current leadership is voted out in a few months.
trumpism won't disappear if he loses, but it's power and influence will be reduced and create an opening for more reasonable republicans. whether they step into that opening is another story.
I've said it before: Mitch McDonnell is a cold-blooded vote counter. if he sees public sentiment go in a different direction, he'll kick MAGA to the curb in a minute.
trumpism won't disappear if he loses, but it's power and influence will be reduced and create an opening for more reasonable republicans. whether they step into that opening is another story.
I've said it before: Mitch McDonnell is a cold-blooded vote counter. if he sees public sentiment go in a different direction, he'll kick MAGA to the curb in a minute.
linebaugh
Well-known member
That was less a compromise and more concentrated effort to tackle an existential threat unique to politicians, especially when considering the bottomless corporate slush fund that was back ended on that deal. Keeping a job is a bipartisan interest.
Think the impasse here is that while there is space for compromise, the apparent reasonable sensibility of that suggestion betrays that at this point its as utopian as socialized medicine. The GOP has been so effective at shifting the overton window theyve gotten us to tamp down our own fantasies.
Last edited:
linebaugh
Well-known member
I think the only space for political reorganization is amongst the Dems. As you said the GOP isn't even a platform. Its apolitical. I think there are things the Dems could do to swing republican voters and thus force change in that party, but they wont as they currently operate.
Leo
Well-known member
like many decisions in life, compromise probably tends to happen in dire, emergency situations when constituents are pounding on the door and something absolutely must be done. things like healthcare reform don't have that urgency, hence the lack of compromise.
sadly, since many republicans don't believe climate change is an urgent matter, they refrain from compromise on the issue. the only hope is that enough of the non-fossil fuel business community, which has it's own interests in dealing with climate change, pressures the GOP to change their ways. if voters AND big GOP corporate contributors get with climate change, the GOP position will change.
sadly, since many republicans don't believe climate change is an urgent matter, they refrain from compromise on the issue. the only hope is that enough of the non-fossil fuel business community, which has it's own interests in dealing with climate change, pressures the GOP to change their ways. if voters AND big GOP corporate contributors get with climate change, the GOP position will change.
constant escape
winter withered, warm
Do you think this would require the democrats to lighten their hatred of republicans? Or do you think this hatred is only exhibited by the more-than-moderate left? My parents are not much more than moderate, and they both seem to hate republicans. Yet alone the younger generations!
Why would you want to join a party whose members hate you, even if you find that party's policies more reasonable than those of your own party?
They wouldn't hate them if they joined the party. They hate them because of their politics. If their politics changed then the issue would begin to resolve itself.
I think one of the obstacles re: the GOP changing tack is they now have an unprecedented ability to manufacture consent via the techniques discussed in the Cambridge Analytica thread. If they want people to feel a certain way about the left they can just flood the internet with phony supporters and false flags, e.g. that fake Antifa account on Twitter run by a white supremacist group.
Leo
Well-known member
if trump loses but trumpism continues to grip the party, it will really put *normal* republicans in a bind. not enough critical mass to form a third party, yet not a majority within the GOP. it may depend on the margin: if trump get trounced and republicans lose the senate (doubtful that both of those will happen but one can dream...), the GOP may realize it's not in their interest to continue down the MAGA road. they do it now because they fear losing their elections.
constant escape
winter withered, warm
I'd hope so, and I think that would be the case for the sound-minded among us - but I'd also say that most of us are much more wound up then we would be, in other times.
And yeah, they might not be hated once they have joined, but the question is whether or not they could genuinely and openly consider joining a party of people who currently hate them.
And yeah, they might not be hated once they have joined, but the question is whether or not they could genuinely and openly consider joining a party of people who currently hate them.
Leo
Well-known member
not sure they have that level of absolute mind control. guess it depends on what Putin wants to see happen.