Is "pragmatism" a dirty word? Is "compromise"?

[pnwmom]

Just wondering . .. .

[kweerwolf]

1. The difference between 'compromise' and 'pragmatism'

Compromise is when you negotiate away something you want ...

pragmatism is when you negotiate away something someone else wants.

A few good examples of pragmatism include man who are willing to negotiate a woman's right to choice, heterosexuals who are willing to negotiate away LGBT rights or American-born Americans who are willing to negotiate away immigrants' rights.

[pnwmom]

3. So are they both dirty words then?

[SharonAnn]

10. Couple of definitions would help. Try these, since they're in dictionarie

Compromise: Settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions. ... To bind by mutual agreement. . . To adjust or settle by mutual concessions.

Pragmatism: A practical approach to problems and affairs (tried to strike a balance) or - an American movement in philosophy .. that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief.

[baldguy]

2. Honorable people of good conscience can always come to an agreement.

No matter how vehemently they may disagree initially.

The trouble is the Republicans have no honorable people of good conscience.

[pnwmom]

4. That may be true when you're looking at their current crop of

politicians, but I'm sure it's not true of all "lay" Republicans. The party is so different than what it used to be, and many long-term Republicans are making a wrenching decision to look elsewhere.

[MercutioATC]

5. It depends on the compromise.

If one party wanted to imprison all gays and the other didn't want to imprison any, would imprisoning half of them be a reasonable compromise?

There are some principles that simply aren't subject to compromise.

[pnwmom]

7. good point

[donco6]

13. Ha! Great point.

Or even 25%? Five? One?

You're absolutely right - without the basic principles, who CARES which party gains power? Isn't it the PRINCIPLES that we're hoping to see put forward? Isn't the difference between the parties the PRINCIPLES? It's so baffling to me that people can't see this.

[BillZBubb]

6. They are dirty words if the other side is uncompromising.

Because then your compromise becomes appeasement. Your pragmatism becomes weakness.

Given the current state of the Republican party (and the VAST MAJORITY of its members still), there is no room for compromise. The only pragmatic course is to fight fire with fire. They bring brass knuckles, we bring a knife; they bring a knife, we bring a gun.

There is a branch of mathematics called game theory, which shows quite clearly that compromise and pragmatism are losers in all cases when dealing with non-compromising opponents. It is a losing strategy.

[pnwmom]

8. I guess where we disagree is that I don't think it's the vast

majority of its members -- I think there's still a large group closer to the middle who are looking for an out.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Nope. Pragmatic thing to do this time around is run someone who

reflects the views of the American People.

The majority of the American People are against the Iraq war.

The majority of the American People are pro-choice.

The majority of the American People don't want self-righteous religion rammed down their throats.

The majority of the American People want the government out of their bedrooms, their bloodstreams, and their personal, end-of-life decisions.

The majority of the American People think Bush has been a disaster as Preznit.

As for "Compromise". Well, just picking an example out of thin air-- many of us Compromised some of our principles in the last presidential election when we supported someone who had voted for the Iraq War. We believed the "conventional wisdom" that he was "immune" to Karl Rove's slime machine, and that his main primary opponent represented the "loony left", and was "angry" and "unelectable"

The Conventional Wisdom Candidate lost that Presidential election.

So, as far as "Compromise" goes- I think it would be a wonderful compromise for the self-proclaimed "moderate wing" of our party to, THIS TIME, allow the other folks to pick the nominee- preferably, someone who we know has stood with us on issues like Iraq from the get-go, someone who is more interested in challenging this blatantly lawless and unconstitutional administration than in playing kissy-face with them...

someone who can do a better job of communicating to the American People what he or she stands for, and someone who ISN'T afraid of a media machine portraying him or her as an "angry" representative of the "loony left".

Yes, when that other part of our party decides to swallow their pride, admit that their way hasn't been working, and support a candidate like Gore or Feingold for President, that will make for a fine "compromise".

[pnwmom]

11. I think Kerry lost because the election was rigged, not because he

was too much of a centrist.

[seabeyond]

15. gosh the other side said he was far left. kerry isnt a centralist

and i think he won too so mute point

[pnwmom]

16. I don't think he's a centrist, either.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I tend to agree with you about the election theft. But Kerry's "flip flop"

on Iraq, as portrayed by the media, was problematic, to say the least.

And again, the K/E ticket -which I supported and worked very hard for- didn't come out in favor of any radical new ideas that stuck in the public's head. Here's a few to toss out, just for fun: A SPHC system. A Liveable Minimum Wage. A Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing an inviolable right to privacy.

Of course, the media portrayed Kerry as a liberal, but that same media managed to portray Dubya as a "centrist" and a "moderate". The Corporate Media thinks that anyone to the left of Mussolini is a socialist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. You mean like the Missouri Compromise or Munich?

They both were "pragmatic".

[seabeyond]

14. my father called me a pragmatist like it was. i looked it up. i liked it

just wondering myself. sure has served me well.