Posted on Oct 14, 2015
SSG Michael Hartsfield
2.08K
14
10
3
3
0
Since seeing many comments about the Republican and Democratic debates, I'm wondering if we as Americans WANT the drama of contention instead of working to compromise.
Allow me to elaborate.
I suspect that many of us as children were all taught to "get along" and "find a common ground" when dealing with other children or difficult issues. As service members we were all taught to adapt, work with people and leadership that we may not like, and to obverse "The First SOF Imperative."
So why do so many of us want political leaders that just want to "stir the pot" instead of those that want to work together towards a common goal?
Is flash more important than substance? Does a candidate's or political leader's willingness to "buck the system" more important than leaders that want work with the opposition for the good of all Americans?
Posted in these groups: 6262122778 997339a086 z PoliticsImages %283%29 Government
Edited 9 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 7
CPT Jack Durish
3
3
0
Compromise is only possible when we have a common goal. Therein lies the source of so much contention these days. Once upon a time the major parties shared common goals. Not so much today. For example, what compromise can exist between those who support the 2nd Amendment and those who oppose it? "Common Sense" gun control is only possible if gun ownership is allowed. Looking back through the decades of the American experience, how many successful compromises can you find? The Great Compromise that allowed the Constitution to come into existence is a rare exception. Others like the Missouri Compromise permitted slavery to continue (not so good). I don't know if they still teach "log rolling" in schools any more, but that really wasn't about compromise, was it? Basically, "log rolling" in Congress was horse trading: You vote for my appropriation and I'll vote for yours. No compromise needed. Thus, "compromise" sounds nice, but I would caution you to reevaluate that view...
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Alex Robinson
2
2
0
The biggest problem is the people in DC on both sides of the aisle forgot long who they work for us and not the other way around
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SCPO David Lockwood
2
2
0
I would rather have compromise. Compromising is supposed to be a way to work together and get things done. But as far as politicians are concerned they expect the other party to do the compromising. If it would only work!
(2)
Comment
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MCPO Roger Collins
9 y
Compromise? As in "compromising position? We have been compromised?





Primary Meanings of
compromise
1.
nv
an accommodation in which both sides make concessions
2.
v
expose or make liable to danger, suspicion, or disrepute.
IMO, compromise is the reason we have an $18T+ National Debt. Some one MUST stand on principle and make ethical decisions. Look at the major legislation over the past 7 years, that was the result of compromise in one sense or another.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close