Yet again, it has been a while since I've posted anything. Not too much this time, but something that has bothered me since I heard it.
President Obama said something recently, in his effort to shore up "bipartisan" support for the extension of the Bush-era middle-class tax cuts (I thought there were no middle-class tax cuts? I remember hearing long and loud that the Bush tax program was nothing more than breaks for rich buddies?), said something that was incorrect (well, to call it incorrect would be an understatement, but, it's what I'll have to go with).
The president of the United States, who, presumably, knows about the history of the United States (and that there aren't 57 of them), made the statement, "...this country was founded on compromise". While Obama was in school in Jakarta (ages 6-10), I understand that American history might not have been a major subject, but upon his return to the states, I would assume he would have learned that America was founded in the midst of war, not with hands reaching across a table in compromise.
"This country tends to move to the center" is something that i hear time and again. Or that the people want a centrist government. This statements are simply not true. There may have been a time when they were true, but that time is long past.
This country wants something other than what it has had, which is why election cycles seem to have a pendulum swing to them. For most of the late half of the 20th century, the Congress was owned by the Democrat party, regardless of the political affiliation of the president. For a nation that "likes the center", that is a rather consistent lean in one direction.
It seems that now that the Republicans have been able to mount a reasonable counter to what the Democrats have been working with/for for more than 50 years, suddenly, there's a desire to govern from the middle, and a tendency toward a "non-partisan moving forward".
This country was NOT founded on compromise. It was founded on conflict and disagreement over tyrannical rule by one who was out-of-touch with the people he governed. At the suggestion of compromise, the ruler's response was to send the military to try and quell the rebellion. Perhaps if the lessons of history could be better learned, political games might become less and less prevalent.
This idea of compromise ueber alles is a flawed one. It is impossible to make a decision if you are constantly seeking to compromise with others. Sometimes, an unpopular decision MUST be made, and followed through on. It's called leadership, and it is what we HAVE a representative form of government for. Yes, occasionally, giving something up for a gain that benefits the greater good is necessary, but that is no way to govern, no way to lead.
Rather than try to shed "labels" or partisanship, maybe what is needed is a little more basic respect. Compromise without respect is pointless.
You want a country with more compromise? Start by respecting that there may just be opinions and stances that you do not agree with, and dismissing them with insulting language may not be the best thing to do. Get rid of labels like "homophobe" applied to any who disagree with the idea of gay marriage, or "racist" applied to any who think that a uniform language in the country might be a better idea than police needing to be bilingual just to do their jobs.
Respect for opinions you might disagree with is the first step to compromise, and closer to what this country was founded upon. When the colonials were not given the respect of the king, they stood tall and earned it through force, not just in the Revolutionary War, but over the next half century.
These days, the idea of earning respect through force is somewhat absurd. But in some cases it almost seems necessary, since too many people have the attitude that ANY respect must be earned. I tend to speak on this topic (respect) a lot, and one lament that I have mentioned many times, is that the default for too many people is one of DISrespect. It seems people would sooner spit on someone as look at them. Add politics, and this amplifies.
Would it not be easier to start from a place of neutral respect? Imagine that everyone you see has a number floating above their heads. From the time you first see them up until the time you "encounter" them (speak to them, nod a hello, hold open a door, etc), what is that number? Is it a negative? Or a zero? You see them walk in your direction, and they stop to pick up and put back on the shelf, a can of soup that someone else dropped in the store. Does that number move at all upon seeing this? You see them almost trip over a small child, carelessly running across their path. Their face contorts in a mask of irritation, and they snarl to the parent about keeping their kid under control. What does this do to their number?
That was something of a tangent, but it is something to think about. If you want to meet someone halfway, do you first not have to respect at least some of what they do, represent, or are motivated by?
Sure, let's compromise. But let's find our respect, first, and learn that compromise is not what allowed these 57 states to be founded.
