LogFAQs > #903918368

Hinakuluiau posted...

Nobody really wants compromise or bipartisanship, you want the people on your side to vote down the line and you want the people on the other side to "vote with their conscience" (i.e. get some to vote the way you want).
Compromise leads to fuck all of importance getting done and ends with just kicking the problems down the line for someone else to fix (that'll be half-assed because of "muh compromise").

this mindset comes with the false premise that the other side needs to "vote with their conscience" to switch to your side. in other words, when you think this way, you need to assume the other side (a) is wrong, and (b) is taking on a morally questionable viewpoint in order to vote how they do

it doesn't take into account situations where neither side is wrong (there are MANY shades of gray, and partisanship intentionally ignores this), or situations where perhaps YOU are wrong (which happens in about 50% of situations where someone is wrong). The mindset which you describe very accurately describes how people thing, and its set up for failure because half the time it leads to the wrong option (without any compromise to temper it), and the rest of the time it can be reversed when the other party gets in control.

A compromise-based solution will get some results, limits the damage of wrong decisions, and can actually withstand changes in administration. And if you have smart people on both sides (haha, i know), you can make solutions that move things forward in a slow, but steady way (And won't be turned all the way back and to the opposite direction when your party loses control)