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

[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.