I was listening to NPR today and someone was commenting on the debt ceiling fiasco, saying that the expressions of discontent on both sides was the 'sign of a good compromise'.
I'm wondering what you all think of that. Personally, I couldn't disagree more. In my estimation, a good compromise is one where areas of agreement are the focus, and issues of disagreement are deferred. If, instead, the compromise is just a tit-for-tat list of competing concessions, I don't see that as a good solution. In such a case, each side simply walks away with a list of things they will reverse at the first opportunity.
And that's the case with far too much of our crucial policy decisions. The temporal uncertainly that engenders cripples our nation, creating an atmosphere where the only thing we can be sure of is that things will change significantly with the next election cycle.
I'm wondering what you all think of that. Personally, I couldn't disagree more. In my estimation, a good compromise is one where areas of agreement are the focus, and issues of disagreement are deferred. If, instead, the compromise is just a tit-for-tat list of competing concessions, I don't see that as a good solution. In such a case, each side simply walks away with a list of things they will reverse at the first opportunity.
And that's the case with far too much of our crucial policy decisions. The temporal uncertainly that engenders cripples our nation, creating an atmosphere where the only thing we can be sure of is that things will change significantly with the next election cycle.
