The average of right and wrong is mediocrity

I understand the concept of compromise. But if compromise is merely averaging right with wrong, at best what one gets is mediocrity. At worst, what one gets is wrong dressed in the trappings of right.

Compromise is realizing that both diet and exercise are important and that one might have to balance the two. Compromise is realizing that the perfect balance may never be found and that as long as we are doing both in proportion, we are on the right track.

Bad compromise is suggesting that some exercise will somehow "balance" a diet of junk food. "It's a diet after all". What it really does is undermine the exercise, leading to a false conclusion that NEITHER diet NOR exercise "do any good".

Including the bad with the good entrenches the bad, and undermines the good.
Including evil with good, undermines the good, and obscures the evil.
Balancing right and wrong erodes the right, and elevates the wrong.

Honoring a bigot on the dias does nothing for inclusiveness, and honors bigots.

"balancing" freedoms and security doesn't make one more secure, and it reduces freedoms.

Including regressive taxes on progressive legislation, codifies regressive taxes into law, and undermines progressive actions.

Changing the location of a regressive prison doesn't make the prison more progressive, it just changes the address, and entrenches the regression within the system.

Advocate that Gitmo shouldn't be, not where it should be.
Advocate that gays should be in the military, not study the concept that maybe they shouldn't.
Advocate that all people should have access to healthcare, not that insurance companies should be paid first.
Advocate that torture is wrong, no matter who does it, not that we have their backs as long as they were "within the four corners of the policy".
Advocate that war is stupid when we start it, not that we have to finish them anyway.
Advocate that the rule of law is the goal, not a luxury of our security.

In the words of James Carville, "We're right and their wrong". Compromising on that won't "move us forward" it will "hold us back".

A "Grand Compromise" of that sort brought us "four score" of slavery. The Missouri Compromise sustained it. Compromise brought us Jim Crow, and a federal government devoid of laws against lynching. A "separate but equal" compromise brought us segregation. It was deciding to NOT compromise on those issues that brought us the Civil Rights act.

Some compromises are a deal with the devil.

:thumbsup: :mad:

you put wrong, anywhere along that line between the two is not right.

If you place a line between two points, you have a line segment. If you place a line PERPENDICULAR to that, you can divide right from wrong. There is alot of room on both sides of THAT line.

I was speaking of right and wrong.

The orientation of the metaphor made the point.

Just picking.:)

...because "average" is the best of the worse and the worse of the best...

that's triangulation. If no one compromised, nothing would get done.

There will never be a time when the majority in any elected body agrees on every issue. Even Democrats have to compromise within their caucus.

Some who are held up as staunch progressives or populist will support things that aren't so progressive, like the fourteen Senators standing up for coal in the climate bill.

The measure is not what upon which issues you are willing to compromise, it is with what you are willing to compromise.

I tend to be somewhat anti-extremist in many ways, and try to understand diplomacy and good compromise positions/tactics, but I definitely have a lot of things I refuse to budge on too.

It's not even a matter of intrasigence. Compromising the effective with the counterproductive does nothing, except erode the effective.

We can agree that abortions should be relatively rare, and disagree upon how to make them so. That disagreement can be based upon the understood effectiveness of the proposals. However, as soon as they become counter productive, neither of us is being successful, and in fact we are both making it worse. A position that is less effective with another is not averaging wrong with right. A position that attempts to replace right with wrong, is a compromise of wrong over right.

Worse, when we attempt to compromise with a person whose intent is to MAKE the efforts less effective, we are eroding those efforts, and enabling their goals.

A recent example is the health care overhaul, or even greenhouse gas emissions. The right wanted to slow down the debate, and by going along with them, we are doing nothing but helping their cause and weakening our own.

By dumping the public option, we lost the best hope we had to move towards health CARE reform. But by including the mandates, we entrenched the very concept that people have an obligation to the insurance companies, but that health CARE is still a free market principal.

I hesitate to think what the GOP will do with such a philosophy when they are in the majority. That's what I mean by dressing up "wrong" in the clothing of "right". All you do is legitimize wrong.

those who believe they can "average" right and wrong are the ones who falsely believe it is only they who are right.

Compromise is the settlement of an issue by mutual concessions or by reciprocial modification of demands.

As I suggested, one can agree to compromise on the details of methods that are considered "right". Compromising in the sense of accepting the "wrong" with the "right" is another, and a prescription for the advancement of the wrong and the erosion of the "right".

The "grand compromise" of the Constitution (and really, it started with the DoI) was not compromise at all. It was maintenance of the status quo that enslaved a people (depending upon how one would wish to count) for another 150 years. That's wrong, and it lead to a war of almost unimaginable slaughter.