Contention vs Compromise

2015-10-14T13:37:07-04:00

Since seeing many comments about the Republican and Democratic debates, I'm wondering if we as Americans WANT the drama of contention instead of working to compromise.
Allow me to elaborate.
I suspect that many of us as children were all taught to "get along" and "find a common ground" when dealing with other children or difficult issues. As service members we were all taught to adapt, work with people and leadership that we may not like, and to obverse "The First SOF Imperative."
So why do so many of us want political leaders that just want to "stir the pot" instead of those that want to work together towards a common goal?
Is flash more important than substance? Does a candidate's or political leader's willingness to "buck the system" more important than leaders that want work with the opposition for the good of all Americans?

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 1:39 PM

2015-10-14T13:39:44-04:00

Substance will always be more important that flash, as long as the substance is what I believe.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Oct 14 at 2015 1:39 PM

2015-10-14T13:39:58-04:00

I would rather have compromise. Compromising is supposed to be a way to work together and get things done. But as far as politicians are concerned they expect the other party to do the compromising. If it would only work!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 14 at 2015 1:56 PM

2015-10-14T13:56:58-04:00

Compromise is only possible when we have a common goal. Therein lies the source of so much contention these days. Once upon a time the major parties shared common goals. Not so much today. For example, what compromise can exist between those who support the 2nd Amendment and those who oppose it? "Common Sense" gun control is only possible if gun ownership is allowed. Looking back through the decades of the American experience, how many successful compromises can you find? The Great Compromise that allowed the Constitution to come into existence is a rare exception. Others like the Missouri Compromise permitted slavery to continue (not so good). I don't know if they still teach "log rolling" in schools any more, but that really wasn't about compromise, was it? Basically, "log rolling" in Congress was horse trading: You vote for my appropriation and I'll vote for yours. No compromise needed. Thus, "compromise" sounds nice, but I would caution you to reevaluate that view...

Response by SGT Nia Chiaraluce made Oct 14 at 2015 2:22 PM

2015-10-14T14:22:56-04:00

This question reminds me of a political riddle:
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates.

Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Which of these candidates would be your choice? Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.

The answer being that the majority would vote based on flash and not substance, and sadly in this case it ends up being Adolph Hitler over Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Personally I vote for substance, however; because of the barrage of media opinions and late night TV appearances I feel as if many of the candidates are placating into the idea of flashy humor instead of substance and ideas that actually explain what they would change and more importantly how.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Oct 14 at 2015 2:23 PM

2015-10-14T14:23:43-04:00

I tend to think of our current situation as the result of long-running trends. For decades, we've had less than 50% of eligible people actually register and vote. Those who do vote tend to either care more generally or often about a specific issue or group of issues. These tend towards polarizing lines; think abortion or gun control, there's very little gray area there. To try and motivate people, politicians have increasingly had to cater to interest groups and their supporters which leads to ideological and political hardening of lines. As this continues, the rhetoric gets more heated and room for compromise evaporates. All the while, I think those who don't vote feel even more vindicated in that choice as they see their interests and views go unheeded.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Oct 14 at 2015 2:40 PM

2015-10-14T14:40:52-04:00

The biggest problem is the people in DC on both sides of the aisle forgot long who they work for us and not the other way around

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Oct 14 at 2015 2:52 PM

2015-10-14T14:52:41-04:00

I keep hearing working together and compromise. Words that don't exist in the Democratic lexicon.