Interesting discussion - now imagine that there are two rigid ideological sides, neither of which can command a permanent working majority on major issues. But neither side will give an inch due to its ever-growing dislike for the ugly politics of the other side.
Instead of reasonable compromise you get a series of train wreck outcomes masquerading as public policy.
If nothing else, supporting a centrist compromise means evaluating issues pragmatically and on their merits before stamping them with an ideology, i.e. government is always bad, using force abroad is militaristic, welfare mothers are just lazy, wealthy people are tax cheats who buy politicians for their own benefit, never question military policy during wartime, favoring abortion means favoring murder, opposing death penalty means your are a wimp and soft on crime....
It just goes on and on, the name-calling, zero-sum ideological train wreck game. Useless.
My yardstick for measuring public policy is what needs to be done and what gets done. If we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, what are we doing about it? If we need to reduce the budget deficit, what are we doing about it?
I won't accept "we are doing what our ideology says is right" and let this pass if the policy is failing. More often, the problem is something the ideology either ignores, or the politicians are hypocritically ignoring their own platform and doing the opposite. Best example of that is deficit spending. |
