Skip to main content

Political ideologues need to learn to compromise

It amazes me how many liberals see President Obama as too conservative and how many conservatives see the president as too liberal. As usual, chances are the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes, and therein lies the problem. Typically the most vocal among us are those whom describe themselves as being on the far end of the political spectrum in one direction or another, not to mention they are typically the most involved and most likely to vote as well. It's no wonder Congress is drifting increasingly further apart as far as ideology goes. The problem is that most people classify themselves as moderate and the more moderate members of Congress we have, the more likely we are to see things get accomplished in Washington and elsewhere in the country. Also, while I realize everyone has their "ideal" image of America, we also have to realize that, no matter how liberal or conservative we may be, in order to try and move closer to that vision of America, we have to make sacrifices. Both sides can't continue to have this all or nothing mentality, because when that takes place, the latter happens - nothing.

As I've mentioned previously, I look at Congress like I do a marriage. If both the wife and the husband refuse to make sacrifices for one another, it's going to wind up being a very short-lived marriage. In order to make things work long-term, the two need to learn how to compromise with one another, meet half way, and make sacrifices. Sure, the husband may not want to help clean the house in preparation for the in-laws to stay over the weekend and the wife may not want to see a particular movie the husband has had his heart set on since seeing the trailer for it two months prior, but as Mick Jagger once sang, "You can't always get what you want," and in order to move a relationship of any kind forward, we have to be willing to make sacrifices. Congress and far-left liberals and far-right conservatives need to understand this. I definitely classify myself as a liberal or a progressive and while I'd love to see my ideal vision of American come to fruition, I know that's not going to be possible without making compromises. And for far-left liberals whom want to call me a traitor or of being weak, I only have this to say - Obamacare. Was it what we ideally pictured for our long-awaited healthcare reform law? No. But was it a step in the right direction and are we closer today to our ideal vision of healthcare in this country because we made sacrifices in order to get that bill passed and signed? Yes. It's fine for political ideologues to be stubborn to a certain extent. However, when that stubbornness impedes on making actual progress in this country because we're dissatisfied with the level of progress we're making, that's shameful. For as much as we'd like go from step 1 to step 50 with the signing of a single bill, we have to be mindful that without step 1, there is no step 2.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"