7:00 to 8:30 pm
Topic: Repeat: Left vs. Right Politics – Can there be compromise?
Completing the unfinished discussion!
Moderator: John Pope
Here we go again! After a lively discussion on Aug. 7, a lot of speakers were left on the list when we ran out of time. It was a good turnout, and many people still had lots to say about this topic.
This time, we should try to focus on the ‘art’ of political compromise – not on the well known right-left ideological differences that were a major part of last week’s discussion.
Incidentally, the recent military coup (who says it was not a coup?) in Egypt may have been the result of an elected leader showing little political compromise. This could form a basis for our discussion.
We should focus on how ideological motivations interfere with genuine political compromises. Here is a link to help us formulate ideas about political compromise (using the US as an example): http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1997/1/cj16n3-6.pdf
Here is our topic as presented last week:
Our discussion will focus on how the political left, and the political right compromise both at the highest international level and the local club/NGO level.
‘The Third Way’ was an important, and ambitious historical try at a left-right compromise at the highest level. Please take a look at this Wikipedia page:
New question: Does stubborn political ideology (no compromise) interfere with progress by suppressing new ideas, and creating hostilities? Why does an elected government ‘exersizing political will’ by passing uncompromising legislation often lead to democratic disillusionment at least, and revolution at worst?
The Left and Right political divide exists at all levels from world governments to local community groups like the VSHA. Most democratic organizations have a set of principles that both left and right abide by. So why are there so many internal struggles for influence going on at all levels?
What about the values the organizational principles entail? Are values that an organization espouses through it’s principles be something that can be compromised? Altered? Discarded? Reversed? Are some more ‘fundamental’ than others?
If world leaders do not compromise (especially militarily), are we doomed to constant wars?
What about compromising at the personal level? Can you remember a compromise that changed your life?
See you there!