GD experiment: What do you think about this statement?

[Writer]

"If a person does not believe in deliberation and compromise, he or she does not believe in democracy."

Discuss! :)

[monmouth]

1. I like it.....n/t

[JuniperLea]

2. I believe that is true

I also believe this is the anti-credo of the current Republican party.

[OHdem10]

3. Very true.

In practice the GOP must give a little and Dems give
a little. The Dems cannot constantly appease the GOP.

As activists we must learn to accept we will not get
a whole loaf everytimg. Sometimes we have to reach
a goal in increments.

[CK_John]

4. False, democracy is about deciding what is best for the common good and how to pay for it fairly.

Deliberation and compromise is just about the paying part. Deciding about the common good it the real test.

[Trillo]

6. I was thinking something similar, but hadn't really formulated my response.

My thoughts were somewhat along the lines that democracy ≠ deliberation and compromise, but that deliberation and compromise is part of an imperfect process of cooperation for the sake of enabling democracy.

Democracy by itself, or lacking a cooperative process, is simply stating one's choice through a vote.

What really muddies the water of understanding is when one realizes most choices of single individuals are self-centered or selfish. Therefore, without a set of guiding principals, such as a founding document to guide one's selfish choices, descent into favoritism, perhaps through exclusionary graft and greed, seems inevitable at some point in the timeline.

One of the things I've seen done by our current corporatist is that the process of pseudo democracy always seems to take us beyond a point of simple democratic agreement. It's often falsely called deliberation and compromise, but it mostly seems to enable an exclusionary agenda of some kind, often extra- or anti-constitutional. It always seems to take us into fierce disagreement, instead of stopping at the point where agreement is democratically discovered.

Democracy, by itself, and enabled by the voting process of multiple individuals, shows us points of communal agreement and other points of communal disagreement, the latter which theoretically should never be passed as law, as they seem to intrude upon individuals' liberty for an exclusionary, or some might say, elitist, agenda.

[defendandprotect]

5. Well. . . wasn't slavery a "compromise" in the Constitution ... leading to the Civil War?

[beaconess]

11. Not really . . .

The issue of slavery itself was not a compromise. An overwhelming majority supported slavery, so there wasn't much chance of it being abolished during the Constitutional Convention.

The compromise came with the determination of how to count the slaves - the slave states wanted them counted fully to increase their Congressional representation. The free states didn't want htem counted at all (after all, if they weren't persons for the purpose of citizenship, how could they be persons when it came time for the counting?) The 3/5 of a persn calculation was the compromise.

[defendandprotect]

13. Of course slavery was a COMPROMISE with the South --

because they wanted those states IN --

and then they continued to balance states -- slave and non-slave --

And, eventually, this led to the Civil War --

from which, IMO, we have still not recovered --

Slavery is, of course, fascism --

[Trillo]

7. Thought I'd kick this.

Hope it wasn't my previous post that caused this topic to die. :party:

:kick:

[Writer]

8. Thanks for the kick!

It's interesting reading everyone's responses. :)

[calteacherguy]

9. True. That's the foundation of Democracy.

Of course, there are some things on which we must never compromise, but our society is built on the idea of finding common ground through civil discourse. It's fundamental.

[Odin2005]

10. I agree. A democratic society cannot exist without compromise

I shake my head every time some moralistic Baby Boomer attacks compromise as something evil and opposed to everything thast's good, decent, and holy (with what is "good, decent, and holy" being the personal opinion of that particular moralist). If people refused to compromise on their ideals EVER liberal democracy would cease to function, the body politic would disintegrate into militant factions determined to create a perfect state based on the factions' own various ideals and principles, with the winner creating a totalitarian police state. Those who think compromise to be evil are totalitarians at heart.

[LWolf]

12. Compromise is give and take.

Giving a little to accomplish much.

It's not giving away the bank in return for being turned out on the street with a pat on the back.

[defendandprotect]

14. If you were an African in America, how would you have felt about "compromise" . . .

either with slavery in the Constitution . . .

or with the Federal government upholding 100 years of the system of Segregation --- ???

Or -- if you were a female -- would you like to still be 3/5th of a citizen?

Slavery is now un-Constitutional, but the concept of female inferiority still exists in our Constitution --

So what would you be -- free or compromised . . . ???

[defendandprotect]

15. What I think is worthy of democracy is "a good deal for both parties" . . .

too many compromises -- if you look out at the world today -- are done under stress and almost blackmail...


And too many "compromises" are actually behind the scenes deals which harm the public --

and so forth . . .

Are we making a "compromise" in letting a few wealthy families control our natural resources?
Or are we doing our nation and humanity great harm in allowing this?

Were early on land deals and transfer of huge lots of property to the elite in the early days of the new nation a "compromise" -- or doing business as usual?

Was there too much of a "compromise" in the strength of the Senate which has the greater power to block the people's house? We were very low on representatives in the beginning -- and still shamefully low in representatives for a nation our size --

Who loses in compromises . . . do we always really know?

[LWolf]

16. These are all excellent points.

There are some principles that should not ever be compromised.

I'll suggest that, in the modern context, supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States is one.

Fair, clean elections are another.

Putting people before corporations yet another.

Quite frankly, the use of "compromise" to water down or undo the stated purpose of an action is political manipulation, and I'm not a big fan. We can agree on a goal, and disagree on the means. That's compromise. When we don't agree on the goal, and the so-called "compromise" is negotiated in order to hamstring efforts to reach the goal, that's not compromise. That's putting some nice words onto a castrated policy that will never be fruitful, in order to pacify the masses.

[slackmaster]

17. Deliberation and compromise are for the weak-minded

So there.

;-)

My serious reply: It sounds like you are trying to poison the well.

[defendandprotect]

18. And too often "compromise" is really blackmail . . .

You may be familiar with the Qwest story . . .
I don't know . .. did they frame the CEO because he refused to go along with the wiretapping of internet and phones -- ????

Looks like it???

QUOTE: Indirectly from Washington Post . . .
10/14/07
NSA Bushwhacks Qwest Ex-CEO
by CONSPIRACY PLANET

In appealing his conviction for insider trading, former Qwest Communications chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio has alleged that the National Security Agency (NSA) asked the Denver-based phone company to participate in a warrantless - and illegal - domestic spying program.

When Nacchio said no, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars were cancelled in retaliation for the company's refusal to gather information about Americans' call records.

"Nacchio was convicted for selling shares of Qwest stock in early 2001, just before financial problems caused the company's share price to tumble," reported the Washington Post in an article called "Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm."
{http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/
AR2007101202485.html?hpid=topnews)

"He has claimed in court papers that he had been optimistic that Qwest would overcome weak sales because of the expected top-secret contract with the government.

"Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb.QUOTE

So -- from slavery to gender balance to blackmail . . . it's kinda hard to take "compromise" as a good thing, generally -- IMO.

[unkachuck]

19. if you put....

'fair' in front of deliberation and 'fair' in front of compromise I would agree....and each one of us will determine what 'fair' is....like pornography, we'll know it when we see it....

....but deliberation and compromise for the sake of deliberation and compromise, well, that's what we now have, and it only seems to benefit the powerful....

[SergeyDovlatov]

20. Compromise is not a virtue and leads to bad results.

Logrolling, for example.

Or consider.

Side 1. Let's let him go
Side 2. Let's kill him

Compromise: Let's torture him, cut of his hand and let him go.

I disagree there are things on which you don't compromise at all.