Compromise or continue to debate?

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Supposn, Apr 24, 2012.

  1. Supposn

    Supposn VIP Member

    Jul 26, 2009
    Thanks Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Compromise or continue to debate?

    There are often instances when differences between opposing parties are irreconcilable.

    Unless the parties reach some compromise in such cases, nothing can be agreed to and enacted.

    Recognizing what cannot be agreed upon and must be resolved by compromise or what cannot be compromised and can only be resolved to the satisfaction of one side are judgment calls.

    When the stakes are high the risks are the failure to enact and accomplishing anything of value or anything of any lasting value or displeasing some parties to the extent that the resulting animosity cannot justify whatever was accomplished.

    I don’t believe a U.S. Constitution would have been passed and enacted if there wasn’t a compromise between the Virginia plan for representation due to population and the New Jersey plan for equal representation for each state. The compromise was to legislative houses of equal power.

    I agree with those contending the compromises regarding slave and slavery made the civil war more likely if not inevitable. Our nation would have been and would now be in a more superior position if there had been no civil war.
    If the state representatives had made a greater effort to resolve the issue of slavery, would there have been no Civil War or no existing United States of America today?

    President Bill Clinton is proud of his “triangulation” by which he was able pass much of his legislative objectives by compromises. Much of what he accomplished was disassembled by the eight years of Bush administration but I equally attribute it to Clinton’s compromises rather than substance. His compromises weren’t sustainable.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012

Share This Page