It's time for us to compromise with right wingers-Here are some ideas how.

[Warren DeMontague]

Today's rant.

http://impeachdubya.blogspot.com

The Fine Art of Compromise


Many of my friends and colleagues on the left have been doing a good bit of soul-searching in the past weeks, asking how the Democratic Party can adjust to this wild new reality that finds us being walloped in the polls with something like a 3% "mandate". Many have suggested that the Democrats need to abandon core principles, or at least moderate them, in an effort to "reach out" to the heartland voter, the evangelical Christian, that kind of thing. While I am of the opinion, myself, that the best thing the DNC could do- not only in terms of reclaiming its lost soul, but also in the eyes of the average American voter- would be to strap on a pair of balls for once and consistently stand for what is right, polling be damned, I am not totally deaf to calls for concilliation and attempts to find common ground with our political opponents. Therefore, I'm working on some rock-solid, practical ideas which I think can form the basis of a workable comprimise on some of the thorny issues which divide this nation today. I'm totally f*cking serious. Really.

Abortion.

Yeah, why not start with the easy one first, huh? Seriously, this is the big, sticky loogie in the back of the throat of American Politics (I should win some kind of award for that metaphor, IMHO) and if we don't get past this one, we're just going to spend eternity glaring at each other from across red/blue state lines like drunken officemates who hate each other at the Company Christmas party. So, a few proposals with regards to the abortion issue:

Herewidth, from now on, any right-winger, Christian Conservative, or Republican Citizen who finds the act or procedure of abortion to be morally and ethically reprenhensible, will never, ever have to have one against her will. Furthermore, I would suggest that pro-lifers should be free to tell their friends they don't like abortion, and to brag about the fact that they would never do such a thing.
Many pro-lifers consider the birth control pill to be a form of abortion. Therefore, I suggest that no pro-lifer should ever be forced to take the birth control pill.
But compromise is about more than that; it's about working together. I propose that Liberals and Conservatives, persons pro-choice and pro-life, could all work together to reduce the need for surgical abortion: Namely, by supporting research into better and more effective forms of birth control, a medical science which has barely advanced in some 40 years.. Also, I would propose that we find common ground with right-wingers in their desire to reduce abortions by working to ensure that everyone who wants access to birth control has it, by working to ensure that health plans cover birth control, and by making the birth control pill available OTC.
Since it's obvious that women who don't have health care coverage can't very well be expected to carry a healthy baby to term, we can compromise with right-wingers by all of us working together to get universal health coverage in this country, preferably through a Canadian-Style Single Payer Health Care System. As well, it's obvious that a single mother making minimum wage is going to find abortion a more practical option than raising a child on six dollars an hour. Therefore, we agree to compromise with the religious right by working to reduce any financial-related abortions by supporting a liveable minimum wage in the United States.
Now, I am firmly of the opinion that the "partial birth abortion" argument is a red herring, a foot in the door for the folks who want to criminalize all abortion from conception onward. However, if pro-lifers can come up with a proveable, verifiable instance where, say, a woman was pregnant for eight months and then decided to get an abortion at the very last minute on a whim because, say, she thought she "looked fat", I will roundly condemn such a thing and I'm certain my friends on the left will concur.
No discussion of sexuality would be complete without mentioning abstinence. We understand that total sexual abstinence is the only 100% certain way to prevent pregnancy, not to mention orgasm. Therefore, we agree that we will support right-wingers who wish to abstain from all sexual activity, and, as much as possible, we will abstain from having sex with them. Furthermore, we will vigorously encourage them to live completely chaste lives, if that is their choice, and even when it is not their choice.

Religion

We understand that many on the right take their religious beliefs very seriously. (Boy, do we ever!).. We realize that this is an area where we need to come together. My proposals for compromise on the issue of religion are simple. I propose that no one in this nation be prevented from worshipping as he or she sees fit. I might even consider allowing churches to be exempt from taxation, insofar as they refrain from direct politicking. I suggest that no one in this country be discriminated against in employment or housing on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs, and I suggest that we compromise by saying that any personal displays of religious opinion, be they a crucifix around the neck or a jesus fish on a minivan, be considered-- get this-- constitutionally protected free speech.

Any church, home, or private business that wants to post the 10 Commandments should be absoultely free to do so!

Now, prayer in schools is a big issue for Christian Conservatives, so I'm going to go out on a big limb here with the compromising-- I propose that no child ever be prevented from praying, on his or her own volition, in a public school, so long as it does not disturb school activities. I would even go so far as to say any child that wishes to pray silently should have the right to do so at any time during the day- even in the middle of class, during a test, during dodgeball- whenever! No child should ever be told he or she can't believe in whatever he or she wishes to believe in. I would also propose that kids should be allowed to form religious clubs as they see fit, so long as they don't proseltyze to other children or disrupt the learning environment.

Whew. This compromising is hard work!

...To Be Continued.

[Bouncy Ball]

1. Geez did you write this?

Brilliant! I was chuckling throughout.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Yeah, thanks.

Tomorrow I'm gonna tackle Gay Marriage. ;)

[Bouncy Ball]

3. I bookmarked your site so I can read the rest

looking forward to it.

[Griffy]

4. umm.. problem, logic and rational thought are not there way:( nt

if the bible is your handbook to life.. and you take it literally, you see it as your duty to carry the word of god to the "people". Its fact vs faith.. however, I think you can find a good amount of support for this, the right has some "moderates".

[robre]

5. What about gun control and the war on drugs?

[RandomKoolzip]

7. Well, obviously, there'd be no comprimise there.

If we were in power, we'd take all your guns away, ban the 2nd amendment, and force your kids to smoke crack while watching Susan Sarandon movies.

We can all deal with that, right?

[Warren DeMontague]

9. I only covered two issues there.

The war on drugs? Take the position advocated by many true conservatives, such as Milton Friedman, the truly conservative, "Small Government" position that consenting adults should be free to make whatever damn choices they want, and it's none of the government's business what they choose to do with their own bodies. Compromise with the small government conservatives--- and allow free enterprise and liberty in the area of the chemicals adults choose to ingest.

As far as Gun Control- it's not exactly one of my big issues.. I'm fairly libertarian on most social issues, and while I'm not a fan of guns I don't hold any illusions about the feasability- much less the desirability- of the gummint coming to take away the shiny metal penis substitutes from several million rednecks. But it seems to me there isn't much need for "compromise" there. Most guns are legal in this country. I don't see why deer hunters need AK-47s, frankly, and I don't think a 3 day waiting period or a series of background checks is any kind of onerous infringement on the 2nd amendment.

[RandomKoolzip]

6. But wait! There are already laws on the books which---

Uh....were you being sarcastic? Shit.


Carry on.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Excellent! If I didn't know better, I'd say that's exactly where we were

a few years ago before we had the national labotomy.

[REP]

10. Good Piece!

Best piece of compromising I've seen.

[Disturbed]

11. Good concepts.

Keep going. ;0)

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. Most excellent. Consider yourself bookmarked.

:thumbsup:

[lojasmo]

13. Fantastic stuff! N/T

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Fine Art of Compromise Part II

In the interest of avoiding redundancy, I'm only reprinting the Gay Marriage part here.

You can read the rest at My Blog.. Be forewarned, not only do I tend to lean Libertarian on social issues, but I swear like a sailor in the process.

The Fine Art of Compromise, Continued

Gay Marriage

Well, let's be honest, shall we? I think it's not the "marriage" part that really bothers some of you folks, it's the "Gay".. Because, when you break it all down, there's just not a whole hell of a lot of difference between a "civil union" that confers all the legal benefits to a gay couple that marriage does, and a marriage itself. Except that little word, and that's what -it seems- has a good many of your burlap shorts in a bunch. Of course, most conservatives are genuinely opposed to civil unions and the rest as well, although publicly it doesn't give them much cover from charges of homophobia to be seen arguing that gay people shouldn't have the right to, say, visit their terminally ill loved ones in the hospital-- as they don't, in many places, today. No, all of a sudden the "institution" of marriage has been turned into a sacred fortress that must be defended, at all costs, against Siegfried and Roy storming through the front gate with the hot, hard, turgid battering ram of social progress.

I tell my wife an "institution" is something people get locked up in. We make our marriage work because we both understand that it is a voluntary assosciation combined with a deep commitment. It's not a bond that God or Government defines, so much as we define. With that in mind, I'm of the opinion that anyone who wants to call themselves 'married', is married. And if right-wing opposition to gay marriage is really not about wanting to deny equal rights to other citizens (it couldn't be... could it?) then it must relate to a primal fear of Gay people being able to say, like straights can, "Guess what? We're married". So the bad news? As far as I'm concerned, at least, they already can.

I can hear the Christian Conservative response, already: "It doesn't matter where you are concerned, you're just a left-wing, heathen blogger. What matters is whether God considers Gay people married" ...Ahhh, but that's where the compromise comes in. See, I would be perfectly happy if, in this country, churches, synagogues, witches' covens, Priests, Rabbis and the like, were all able to decide whether or not they wanted to marry gays, just like many denominations won't marry persons previously divorced. The Catholic Church doesn't want to marry Gays? No problem! Right, see, if the gays get a marriage license-- one that confers the same civic rights as a civil union- and Rev. Fred Phelps (even though he's a flaming, noxious butt-shard) wants to yell at them "Nyah, Nyah, you're not really married"... He can still hold that opinion! (Actually, that f*cking asshole would probably do something a lot more offensive... However, as we all know, the first amendment is only as good as the most vile speech it defends)

But I would go further than that with this Gay Marriage deal. I understand that many of you right-wingers find the "threat" of Gay Marriage to be an all-encompassing, frightful bugaboo that keeps you up at night in clammy, cold sweats, visions of wedding cakes topped with two little plastic men swimming around endlessly in your pointy little heads.. Therefore, let me assure you, as gently, as reassuringly as I can.. if Gay Marriage is legalized, under no circumstances.. none, whatsoever! will any of you be forced to have one against your will. Furthermore, I think I can safely say that, with the exception of inmates of certain correctional facilities and Catholic Altar boys, it is extremely unlikely that you will find yourself engaged in any kind of homosexual relationship-- unless you're really, really looking for one. Yes, my right wing friends --and I know this is a stunning revelation-- accepting gays doesn't mean you have to become one! In fact, I hate to break it to you, but most of them aren't really interested in you to begin with.

But I promised compromise, so, here goes- you don't even have to "accept" the Gays who live, work, and pay taxes all around you. Sure, it would be the decent thing to do, but there's no law against being a f*cking ignoramus. All you have to do is not interfere with their lives and rights- just like they don't interfere with yours.