Respect For Your Opponent? (repost)

[the_gneech]

My bud hantamouse is a man who, as a rule, diligently avoids making deep pronouncements when other people might hear them. However, in this particular instance, I think he bears repeating:

Respect For Your Opponent?

Do you agree or disagree with this:
"Anyone who opposes my ideals is some degree of evil and/or stupid, therefore I do not have to respect them or their opinions."

Or how about:
"If I had the opportunity, I would impose the laws I believe in on the entire nation, even if the majority of people disagree with them."

No matter what you believe or how strongly, keep in mind that a very large portion of the country doesn't agree. Can you find it within yourself to respect that? can you support, or even seek, a solution that isn't what you really want, but most of Them can live with?

Now that the congress is split, our representatives have two choices, Compromise, or Lose.
I fully expect many of them to choose Lose, loudly and obnoxiously.

How will you choose?

—hantamouse

Edit: It's worth noting here that on some level there has to be a fundamental willingness on both parts to live and let live. When the proposition being floated is "[group] should not be considered human beings," for instance, then compromise is not really feasible. When we're talking about things like economic policy or what to have for breakfast, compromise is just dandy.

-The Gneech

Comments

[applejinx.livejournal.com]

Well, we do have two very shockingly different countries under one fraying banner. Always was, it's just become too obvious to ignore.

I do not have to respect the beliefs of people who would get run out of town on a rail in THESE parts. I'll be polite when I visit their parts, but I would be polite when visiting Somalia too.

I guess the counterpart would be, they might be polite while visiting, I don't know, Bangkok or Leningrad.

I think the problem lies in trying to unite the hellholes when they're too different...

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

Whether or not you have to, it might be worth it to try. ;)

Note that this doesn't apply to views such as "[group] should be beaten with a bat and have no rights as human beings." But it does apply to things such as whether or not the Fed should tweak interest rates.

-TG

[sirfox.livejournal.com]

Rather a lot of the republicans who got elected did so on a "NO COMPROMISE" platform, which is kind of scary, short-sighted, and terribly, terribly unrealistic, but it resonated with enough voters to get them elected. (these are the same people who cried foul at having $Liberal_Agenda 'shoved down their throats.' but look so forward to doing the same when it's their agenda.)

The difficulty and dilemma inherent in dealing with that mindset was summed up rather nicely in a Doonesbury strip a while back. There's just no possibility for dialogue when one side refuses to give any ground, ever, or even acknowledge that any other viewpoint is valid. With luck, they'll set a new speed record for shooting themselves in the foot.

[theodwulf.livejournal.com]

Not to endorse Republicans, but you have to understand that by the premises of some movements that come under the heading of conservative, things like abortion count as saying "[group] should not be considered human beings," and therefore it's understandable why they would refuse to compromise.

Before you can expect any compromise, you've got to understand their premise, and then give some reason why it doesn't apply.

[hantamouse.livejournal.com]

No one party has a lock on that attitude. Republicans won on a No Compromise platform because they were running against a clearly demonstrated No Compromise Democrat controlled government.
The voters weren't turning conservative, they were butt-kicking. And if these new Republicans try to run the house with the same No Compromise that got them elected, there will be more butt-kicking in 2012.
I'm not confident, but its worth a hope.

[ziabandito555.livejournal.com]

I have to agree. We'll see what happens in the coming months and next two years. Hopefully there will be some compromise and some attempts at stability.

First time in 28 years that the bicameral legislature has been split. Its interesting.

[theodwulf.livejournal.com]

It's been my experience that a lot of people think that being on the side that is supposed to be the one with all the tolerance and acceptance and celebrating of diversity counts as respecting their opponent. They're pro-diversity, after all, and therefore don't need to actually bother ding any respecting of their opponent.

[kelloggs2066.livejournal.com]

On Halloween Night, the Great Pumpkin rises out of the pumpkin patch.
He flies through the air with his bag of toys for all the good girls and boys of the world!

[the-gneech.livejournal.com]

The Great Pumpkin left me a little plastic skull with a flashy red light in it!

-The Gneech

[radbaron.livejournal.com]

I got a rock.

[kinkyturtle.livejournal.com]

I got a blackout.

[hossblacksilver.livejournal.com]

How strange, me too.

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

I, for one, am relieved that my party did not gain control of both chambers of congress. Yes, historically the nation has always done the best economically when Dems have the White House and Reps have both chambers of congress. However, in this age of 51-49 split votes (usually being translated as "a mandate from the people" by either party), having one chamber belong to the pedantically unforgetful (unforgiving) elephants and the other party belonging to the jackasses, it means they will have to learn to find middle ground to get anything done.

Though I do wish it were the senate we gained, as it is the more powerful of the two chambers.

[rowyn]

I'm okay with the legislature and the executive branch loudly refusing to compromise. I'm kinda feeling like "doing nothing" is the best thing they can do for the country anyway. No, not "nothing" is better than "compromise" but "whatever you really want to do is worse than doing nothing". On either side. O:)

That said, I'm pretty sure they'll manage to do some things anyway. That's okay, too. Usually compromise is an improvement, although in the case of the health care overhaul, I think we got the worst of both worlds. (That is, going with either what conservatives really wanted OR what liberals did would've been better. :/ )