The Art of Compromise
April 16th 2010 01:17
It's commonly known that politics is "the art of compromise," and I suppose that's a good and basic definition. Ironically, if politics is the art of compromise, then why is there such a lack of compromise (i.e., patience, forbearance, the ability to listen to carefully and thoughtfully to opinions and positions we detest) in most conversations about the subject?! Perhaps some proper distinctions need to be made. The term "compromise" is loaded with ambiguity because it can be weighed down with virtue, or vice. For example, I must compromise in relationships lest I become too selfish and self-seeking to entertain the rights, views, opinions, and privileges of others. On the other hand, I would be perceived as a villain if I compromise my integrity by going against conscience and sacrificing fundamental principles that should be maintained, due mainly to a perception of what is "right" and what is "wrong." So perhaps our problem (at least in dialog and conversations about all things political) is a faulty understanding of (and/or, the ability to distinguish between) the difference between "noble" and "evil" compromise. I suspect we are taught to avoid the subjects of politics and religion for a definite reason, and perhaps that reason is: both disciplines presuppose a sense of "right and wrong," of "good and evil." People become passionate when they believe something is right or wrong. Show me a person who can maintain the "razor's edge" between healthy compromise (the maturity and ability to recognize that not everyone thinks the way I do), and destructive compromise (the willingness to sacrifice conscience and principles that must be maintained), and I'll show you a good politician. Perhaps we can't talk about politics and religion because they are so closely related, and so inextricably bound together.
| 15 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
