Posted: Nov 2, 07 12:36pm
My father taught me that the sign of a good compromise was when no one was happy with it. Over the decades which have followed, I've come to appreciate the wisdom in that apparent paradox. Another paradox of my youth was the phrase "loyal opposition". I was raised that if the "winner" of an election was not of your choosing that you were still supposed to give your support for the greater good. America's golden age of the late 40's, 50's, 60's and mid 70's was built on the wisdom of the paradox.
Somehow during my lifetime that wisdom has been abandoned. Americans no longer seem to want to work for a viable compromise. The "Loyal opposition" is now on the endangered species list and rapidly approaching extinction. Read through the discussions found within this site and see if you can spot one.
Instead of finding common ground and cooperating, the focus is on distorting the unintentional gaffe, embellishing the common mistake, the exaggerating the missteps in strategy while understating/ignoring some truly splendid accomplishments. If you listen to the trumpeting voices on the conservative right you would think that Clinton was leading the country straight to hell while the braying from the liberal left would have you believe that Bush is a demonic henchman from Hades. The reality is somewhere in the middle of the political cacophony -- both made mistakes and yet both ably lead our country into prosperity unseen since the aforementioned Golden Age. Imagine if you can that both might actually be human and therefore subject to the same foibles as you and I.
I, for one intend to be a gracious winner while simultaneously being a loyal opponent. This paradox is easy because I am a true moderate. I think the best presidential team would be McCain-Lieberman (or vice versa). Now wouldn't that make everyone unhappy?
