|
|
|
|
|
|
by kstenerud
2239 days ago
|
|
|
Compromise is antithetical to a two-party system. One could make the same arguments against the Republican party, using their hobby horses as examples. Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party created that would bring them praise, so that they can't point to it in the following election cycle. |
|
|
> Every gain for party A is a loss for party B, so you must ensure (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the other party's initiatives end in failure to help secure your victory in the next election. And once you're in power, you must destroy anything the other party created that would bring them praise, so that they can't point to it in the following election cycle.
I don't think that's a general rule, and the observation is only true in certain conditions. For instance, I think compromise would be more common in cases where the parties weren't starkly ideologically polarized. Similarly, if the system allowed for some sugar make bitter medicine of compromise go down easier, compromise would be more likely (specifically, I'm thinking of earmarks).