Talking About Compromise (Full Text)

A buddy of mine and I were chatting on IM about the meaning of political compromise the other day. Before posting it here I fixed some but not all punctuation and spelling. In particular over IM I tend not to use capitalization or periods. I also cut bits out to make it more interesting and readable. MONSTRTRKMAN is not his real IM name.



MONSTRTRKMAN: Politics. Bleh. Everybody's wrong because they think they're right. If people would compromise more and try to see eye-to-eye, it'd be a lot less stupid.
me: compromise is often a bad idea
at the start of this country we had a compromise that the North would have slavery and the South would not
MONSTRTRKMAN: I believe you mean that the other way around.
me: Indeed. See how bad a system it was?
MONSTRTRKMAN: And in any case, we got a country out of it. You can't just say it was a bad plan because it granted tacit approval to a morally-corrupt and terrible system and spawned the Civil War.
me: I think that the idea that the best solution is the midpoint between any two opposing ideas has a lot to be desired from the standpoint of logic
MONSTRTRKMAN: America would probably not even exist if that compromise had not been struck.
Best? Hah.
It's not the best solution. It's the one that worked. Compromises tend to work, because both sides have a say.
The best solution would be if England let go without any problems and southern plantation owners stopped being dicks.
me: but what if, knowing that compromise is the rule, one side moves their stated objectives further and further to the outside?
the optimal strategy becomes being as extreme as possible; your ideas don't have to make sense they just have to be more extreme than the other guy's and presto the compromise is closer to what you wanted
MONSTRTRKMAN: Then you stop doing business with them and stop appeasing their cheating asses.
me: Brilliant! Thank you!
MONSTRTRKMAN: Compromise works if people will work with it. If they don't actually want to compromise and they simply want to get their way under the flag of compromise, they can die in a fire.
…
[I bring up the issue of health care reform]
MONSTRTRKMAN: The people want free healthcare. They can't have it.
The insurance companies want no healthcare and all the money. They can't have that.
There has to be a compromise.
'Best' doesn't factor into this.
What will work in REALITY is what's needed.
me: the choice isn't between free healthcare and all moneys to insurance
right now it's between action and no action
MONSTRTRKMAN: No, it's not. But when you're talking about one side vs. the other, that's what each one truly wants.
And they're both insane, unachievable goals. That's why compromise is needed.
me: I'm not sure who you think is advocating free health care.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Nobody is - but you invoked 'the people' a little while ago, or at least 'the majority', and again, it's not what they're advocating - they'll never get it and they know it - but it's what they truly want.
me: I'm advocating having the government pay for more of it because of the increased efficiencies that are possible in this particular marketplace
me: the patchwork system we have now requires a lot of overhead costs and is a big burden on small businesses and discourages people from changing jobs to places they might be more efficient
MONSTRTRKMAN: A perfectly reasonable approach. I probably agree. But we're not arguing healthcare. We're arguing compromise and reality vs. black-and-white annihilation of the insurance industry.
Or black-and-white selection of any side over compromise.
me: I'm not arguing for black-and-white choices, I'm arguing that we should be less compromising on certain issues
MONSTRTRKMAN: Or are you? I believe "it's just what the people want: the industry can go screw" was posited not long ago as the 'best solution.'
As opposed to a compromise, that is.
me: I think that we should listen to what individuals and doctors and hospitals and political parties have to say: the insurance industry has shown itself to be a nasty cheater and should be cut out of the process
We can strike a compromise among the reasonable people.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Compromises - real, honest-to-God attempts by both sides to reach a decision that they both will support and attempt to champion - are needed in politics.
They need to be the rule, not the exception.
There's far too much vilification and 'GO TEAM! HA-HA, SUCK IT, OTHER TEAM!' in politics.
MONSTRTRKMAN: There is no magic bullet. Cut out the insurance agencies entirely and some bad stuff is gonna happen. Both sides need to work together.
me: I think if you're not pissed off you haven't been paying enough attention
we are so far away from any sort of reasonable system right now
MONSTRTRKMAN: Hah, you're still trying to make this about healthcare because you feel it's enough of a polarizing battleground that you can change my mind about compromise.
me: well it's in front of the congress right now
the other current issue is energy policy and global warming
MONSTRTRKMAN: You think I like insurance? It's a waste of money and resources. A colossal waste. But we need to compromise or nothing is ever going to get done.
me: should we talk about my propensity to compromise with people who think God is going to end the world within a generation so we don't need to protect the earth?
I am sorry - sometimes when I hear the word compromise I think it means "compromise with crazy people"
MONSTRTRKMAN: If they matter in terms of the central issue, then you do. Human beings are stubborn, irrational, illogical creatures. You think you can bloody their nose and they'll accept it? Cut them out of the process and they'll want revenge. No, you need to bring everybody to the table. Even the crazy people.
…
[We move to talking about Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen’s comments on environmental protection]

me: we should win the argument on the basis of sound logic and clear communication, not compromise with crazy
MONSTRTRKMAN: That approach will crystallize the issue as one of religion. You'll either congregate support around her or make her a martyr. And making a fight out of it ensures she'll never change her mind - people are stubborn.
We should.
But we won't.
me: I disagree, I think a well-made argument can pare her support away over time
MONSTRTRKMAN: How many people believe the Holocaust never happened? How many people believe we never landed on the moon?
Logical, well-made arguments only work on people willing to hear them.
And they're in the minority.
me: I'm not willing to give up on the electorate or stop trying to convince people of good science or sound policy.
MONSTRTRKMAN: I never said you had to do any of that.
me: People are smart: if you tell them that dumb ideas are dumb and why they are dumb they will listen.
MONSTRTRKMAN: What you have to do is work with the people who DON'T.
To quote Men In Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe."
me: Yeah, and the argument wasn't won by adopting a compromise stance.
Galileo stuck to his guns and got excommunicated.
We should have adopted a "partly curved" hypothesis as a compromise between flat earth and round earth?
MONSTRTRKMAN: No. But I do like how you're jumping around the issue - the key here is that you can't convince the masses. You need to work with the people in charge. The people who make changes happen.
me: I disagree entirely.
You can and you must convince the masses, the powerful will always be the last to move.
They will defend their little patch of the status quo until you yank it out from under their feet by popular demand.
MONSTRTRKMAN: Conflict. Always back to conflict. For someone who espouses cool rationality and logical arguments, why do the answers always end in vilification and antipathy?
me: Are you saying that my positions are not logical?
MONSTRTRKMAN: Please. Your positions are eminently logical.
Your approach is fraught with conflict. And political divide.
me: Logic needs passionate defense or it will be overwhelmed by vested interest and unfair bias and racism and sexism and dogma etc etc
MONSTRTRKMAN: To an extent. But when you go to the extreme of vilifying one side outright, you risk falling into the same abyss you rail so passionately against.
me: I rail against poor judgment and corrupt power
If the people who hold opposing views were able to speak more logically we would have more to talk about. It's hard to engage with stupidity: I do try!!
MONSTRTRKMAN: That's a fair point, but it's bringing your own bias to the table - the world is not a fair and rational place. We must take the positive aspects of as many approaches as we can and attempt to better our situation through them - and means conceding things that you know for a fact are wrong.
me: I am willing to concede or compromise for the sake of strategy
MONSTRTRKMAN: That is what ALL sides must do.
me: The GOP members of Congress have decided that, given their current lack of actual numbers they will oppose all Obama policies on the hope that if things go poorly they can point fingers later.
Their strategy at this time does not include the possibility of compromise.
MONSTRTRKMAN: That event doesn't exist in a vacuum. They should have compromised earlier, and the democrats should have been receptive to it. I'm not saying they weren't, mind you, but just in general.
me: they have nothing to gain from compromise and lots to gain from showing symbolic opposition
MONSTRTRKMAN: They do now. Great.
Both sides need to stop being dicks to each other and freaking WORK TOGETHER.
me: however there are two political groups that matter right now
these are progressive Democrats and obstructionist Democrats
…
me: well I'm trying to say that my stance as far as compromise is concerned ENTIRELY DEPENDS on what the situation is and who the other side is
MONSTRTRKMAN: And therein lies the problem. Compromise with strings attached isn't really compromise.
me: No - that's what compromise has always been.
I get this, you get that; done deal.
MONSTRTRKMAN: You're coming to the table with preconceptions about who you'll work with.
Who you're willing to negotiate with.
Those are the strings I'm referring to.
me: If you soften your position before going in to negotiate then the other side will just negotiate with that weaker position instead.
Then you'll lose twice instead of just once.
This is logical!
MONSTRTRKMAN: If you refuse to compromise and simply decide to attack the other side outright, then you're probably going to make the situation worse.
These are people, Steve! They're NOT LOGICAL!
…
MONSTRTRKMAN: And if they hold some of the keys to repairing our planet or healing our sick, then geez, we need to talk to them. And compromise with them.
Because fighting with them is a distraction from those issues.
me: yes. the obstructionist Dems hold power over these issues now. The GOP does not.
…
[We talk about game theory and optimal strategies]
MONSTRTRKMAN: Anyway, the point here is that you are most successful when you are open to everything and everyone.
me: I think you're stretching an analogy [about game theory] a bit thin here
the game situation is just people offering trades, a marketplace
MONSTRTRKMAN: Eh, perhaps. It's game theory that supports my viewpoint, however. Again, I do not care about political viewpoints. I think both sides are being idiots.
me: In the marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are equal unlike how all dollars are equal.
Ideas must be judged according to one's values.
MONSTRTRKMAN: In this discussion, Bush, Republicans, Democrats, Atheists, etc. are irrelevant. The point is that both sides should be open to compromise and dealing with the other side.
me: I like it when we are peaceful and prosperous and not excessively unfair
a little bit of unfairness is acceptable
some people want way too much
MONSTRTRKMAN: Well, they need to compromise.