The Dangers Of Revolutionary Right-wing Rhetoric

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

GC--

Is it your position that there are conditions/circumstances under which strong centralized authority is appropriate but now is not such a time?

No.

It is my position that centralized authority (of whatever scale) can only be stable if there exists sufficient trust between groups with diametrically opposed viewpoints.
In order to reestablish such trust, I believe it may be necessary to allow groups with vastly different views "cities of refuge" from each other.

An overpowering central government does not allow such refuge.
Power dispersed among the several states does allow such refuge, and still allows for (I would argue "encourages") mutually beneficial interdependence.

Whether it be one man against another or one nation against another, conflict will always escalate if there is no safe retreat.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Irishsquid

I don't believe in compromise, at least on the things that truly matter to me.

<<SNIP>>

I don't understand how anyone could think it would be good for me to compromise on ANY of these, since they are, in fact, strongly held beliefs. That said, I'm not going to get up-in-arms over things I don't hold a STRONG opinion about.

FWIW, I think this post illustrates that a huge challenge today is that there's a wide range of views on what it means "to compromise."

When self-described moderates such as myself say "let's work on finding a compromise policy," people with unmistakable integrity may take that to mean "Let's find ways to compromise your principles."

IMO, that is not the mindset many moderates bring to the dance. Here, I differentiate between political moderation and political pragmatism. To me, being a moderate reflects a sensibility conveniently summarized by America's muse--and maybe the only person in America unequivocally shorter than I--as follows.

1. It is possible to discuss differences of opinion in a friendly, respectful way.
2. There are good people of every political stripe, all with good reasons for believing the way they do.*

From this viewpoint, "compromise" is about using the full spectrum of American political, social, cultural, religious, intellectual, and economic life to find innovative solutions for the country's problems even if it appears that Americans have irreconcilable differences. (In which case, it is time to create new knowledge.)

Then again, my two cents is about $3.73 short of a tall mocha.

Originally Posted by nmap

That's a very nicely turned phrase!

Nmap, thank you for the compliment. I would be remiss to point out that I was thinking of Tolkien when the phrase came to mind.

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

No.

It is my position that centralized authority (of whatever scale) can only be stable if there exists sufficient trust between groups with diametrically opposed viewpoints.
In order to reestablish such trust, I believe it may be necessary to allow groups with vastly different views "cities of refuge" from each other.

An overpowering central government does not allow such refuge.
Power dispersed among the several states does allow such refuge, and still allows for (I would argue "encourages") mutually beneficial interdependence.

Whether it be one man against another or one nation against another, conflict will always escalate if there is no safe retreat.

GC--

Thank you for the clarification.

I think your formulation presents a Catch-22 of sorts. If two parties do not trust each other and one withdraws, what is to keep the other party from seizing the opportunity to press its agenda?

If I'm following your thoughts, the crucial element seems to be the notion of a "safe retreat." IMO, a requisite of this withdrawal is that the option should protect the dignity of all involved as well as the process itself. And then re-engagement would follow only after some fence mending and mutual confidence building.

_______________________________________________
* Kristin Chenoweth with Joni Rodgers, A Little Bit Wicked: Life, Love, and Faith in Stages (ISBN-13 9781416580553), p. 20.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I think your formulation presents a Catch-22 of sorts. If two parties do not trust each other and one withdraws, what is to keep the other party from seizing the opportunity to press its agenda?

Broad distribution of power prevents such opportunism.
Too much centralized power + 2-party system encourages such opportunism.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

If I'm following your thoughts, the crucial element seems to be the notion of a "safe retreat." IMO, a requisite of this withdrawal is that the option should protect the dignity of all involved as well as the process itself. And then re-engagement would follow only after some fence mending and mutual confidence building.

This was something I learned during my years herding drunks in a night club.

If someone feels they can't retreat with dignity, they'll go down fighting, no matter how bad the odds are.
If they have an option of retreat where they can keep their dignity (or a reasonable degree thereof) they'll often take it.


This concept presents a problem when it comes to some "cultures of honor".
Any sort of retreat is considered a loss of dignity.
Typically, this will result in scorched-earth and/or annihilation as the only resolutions.

_______________________________________________
* Kristin Chenoweth with Joni Rodgers, A Little Bit Wicked: Life, Love, and Faith in Stages (ISBN-13 9781416580553), p. 20.[/QUOTE]