Luis, this is where compromise is called for. Look at it like a traffic light. We all cannot enter the intersection at the same time. Some of us have to stop while others go. We have to take turns if either of us are going to get anywhere, other wise we both crash into each other.
Compromise is necessary or at least healthy sometimes, sure. But not always. There is such a thing as being too lenient with what turns out to be abusive demands.
You value personal economic responsibility. I am often puzzled by how little you demand of personal responsibility of faith and of political belief. It sometimes boggles my mind, it really does.
Then again, I realize I am very much the odd bird when it comes to these matters. It just turns out that I have consistently failed to see why I should act or believe any differently, or even why so many others do.
Politicians act like children who have not learned to share. They believe their constituents must walk lockstep with them on every issue.
Do they? It seems to me that politicians often (as a matter of course, even) keep watch on what the popular stances are and attempt to adjust their public image accordingly, even if it sometimes brings direct contradiction to previous stances. Sometimes that adjustment takes the form of a palatinhood of sorts against the "enemy forces", but that is still very much a result of awareness of what the common people want.
I only wish politicians - and voters even more than politicians - were not so accomodated and mindless about the true challenges ahead of us all. Politics these days are too reactive, too fear-driven, too deluded. Worst of all, they are too inconsequential and too nationalist, valuing myth over reality.
Republicans need to spend less on the military.
Democrats need to spend less on entitlements.
Everyone needs to pay more taxes.
We are all in this together and it is going to take a shared sacrifice for things to get better for everyone.
When governments spend more money than they have, they are stealing from our children and grandchildren.
Every government should have to balance their budget and live within their means.
It is immoral to do otherwise.
No argument here, except that I'm not too sure about the entitlements.
In other words, no one is going to get their way when there is a difference of opinion.
Trouble is, that simply doesn't always work in practice. There are those with opinions that are simply absurd or at least unworkable. Some are all-out immoral. There are times when one must take a stand and accept no compromises (and the consequences, of course).
You can take turns getting exactly what you want and exactly what you don't want or you can find middle ground that no one likes and learn to live with it.
Or...... we can divide our countries into two parts and people can vote with their feet. This reminds me of a Bible story where two women wanted the same child.
That is indeed sometimes a necessity, perhaps often so. People really need to feel a stronger connection to the fate of their own communities, and far as I can tell that is very much a worldwide reality. While I do favor wide and even worldwide governments, I also favor greater local authonomy and responsibility. It pains me crazy to see people routinely waiting for years and even decades for solutions to what ought to be fairly usual, solvable situations. Difference of opinion justifies only so much impasse, because impasse is in itself harmful.
tlˌɪzShow Spelled[kap-i-tl-iz-uh
m]