Moderate Democrats: Shouldn't compromise be a two-way street? [View All]

[Q]

There were recent threads bemoaning the division between the 'moderates' and 'progressives' in the Democratic party.

I can't speak for other liberals or progressives...but I believe the divisiveness has nothing to do with the moderate politics of our more conservative friends in the party.

The division is about the direct or indirect support of Bush* policies by 'moderates' who seem to believe that the Bush* Republicans are still interested in working together, bipartisanship or sharing power.

Liberals and progressives have absolutely no problem with compromise when the opposition understands that it's a process of give and take. There is no such thing as a one-sided compromise. But time and again those who call themselves moderates compromised with the Bush* government without getting anything in return for their party except minority status.

Moderates say we should 'compromise' with the Rwingers on issues such as abortion and separation of church and state. Yet...the Bushies have no intention of compromising on these and other issues. Their stated intention is to eliminate abortion and completely tear down the wall that separates church and state.

How is compromise possible when the other side considers compromise a weakness and refuses to participate in the process of give and take? We give and they take and give nothing in return. How much more can the moderates compromise without giving everything away?