Democratic lawmakers have faced eruptions of anger at town hall meetings across the country this week, as constituents have coupled their fury over President Donald Trump’s actions with deep frustration over what they see as a feckless Democratic response.
Current events are proof that your preconditions needed for compromise to work do not exist in the real world.
That’s because the democrats refuse to move left and don’t have a backbone.
“my centrism isn’t a problem, it’s DEMOCRATS for not being left enough, because then my centrism would really be centered”
Sure bud, whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.
You aren’t wrong about democrats being spineless, but Personally I could never try and compromise with someone who thinks my very existence and the existence of minorities gives them a reason to hate and persecute up to literal lynching and murder but that’s just me.
You missed the part about ethics. The compromise between murdering and not murdering minorities is to not murder minorities.
That is the dictionary definition of ‘not a compromise’.
If they provide anything resembling reasonable, we find middle ground.
The Democrats can’t have a backbone. They are owned by oligarch interests. Asking the Democrats to save you is asking a shark to stop another shark from eating you. They are rotten to the core.
If the democrats won’t do it, then a leftist party is required
Exactly. The Democrats are incapable of being the change we need.
Replace “the real world” with “America” and you’re right. There is plenty of real world out here where there is no need to be tied to one party. In my parliamentary elections I’ve had 3 parties that I’ll choose from depending on what they’ve been doing recently. It all comes back to that stopid FPTP system forcing two parties on you.
A parliamentary system may be more resilient against fascist takeovers but this discussion is about the inherent foolishness of the centrist fallacy.
It’s a fallacy under any circumstances: do not compromise with people who are operating in bad faith.
To be fair, they kind of did exist for like… at least ~60 years. Many of us are old enough to remember what life in the 90s was like.
I would say the last time they existed was the 1970s when Nixon agreed to create an EPA he really didn’t want to that had fewer powers than its supporters really wanted. The 90s only seemed smooth because scumbag Clinton gave Republicans everything they wanted on welfare reform, criminal justice, telecom deregulation, intellectual property laws, and international trade.
And we still got Gingrich and the contract with America and Ken Starr and Sore Loserman for being so conciliatory
It’s never been perfect, and far from ideal, but it worked. Compare that to whatever the fuck it is we’re experiencing now, and it looks like a goddamn utopia.
And erased the deficit. Plus the first real attempt at national healthcare.
I mean, there’s good and bad. We could have that or we could have all bad.
Until some of you start running and finding out what it means to win an election we default to whoever they’ve got queued up.
Dude, no. The 90s were better than now because the ball was closer to the top of the hill and hadn’t been rolling back down as long. The strong worker protections, economic regulations, and tax policy that built the middle class during the 50s and 60s started to be dismantled in the 70s because of compromising with economic extremists. They started blaming everything that made a strong middle class possible for high inflation and have been doing it for every economic woe since.
On the other end, the only reason many of those laws were able to be passed in the first place is because FDR and company dragged us there over the objections of the same group.
The best times this country has had economically were never because the neoliberals and their predecessors back through the robber barons were less extreme and more reasonable, but because we had politicians who were up to the task of kicking the shit out of them and overcoming their influence.