Letter to the editor: In politics, compromise is possible
The divisiveness at the federal level is stigmatized as the “worst ever,” “unprecedented” and “without comparison,” to cite just a few epithets. Good rhetoric. Grabs viewers. Raises partisan money. But untrue.
There has never been a “golden age” of politics, and in fact the current level of acrimony is historically mild and redundant. It has been much worse, but I will spare you the history lesson.
Personal attacks have been the norm, although we have not experienced the current heat for quite some time, owing largely to a well-financed partisan divide, the aforementioned drive to perpetuate division on the part of the media and the Wild West frontier of social media platforms like Twitter.
However, when diametrically opposed entities battle it out to the eventual conclusion, we, the public, are the winners. Once they have achieved a compromise, they will have pared down each other’s demands. That is politics, pure and simple.
The end result will be a win/win situation, which defines compromise. But through the lens of the media, no compromise is foreseeable, or even possible. We are being manipulated into believing that this is a zero-sum game; in order to win big, someone has to lose big.
Send money to the PAC of your choice so we can run the table. Meanwhile, back in the chambers, the elected lords and ladies achieve nothing of value for us.
The takeaway is simple: If you want this dogfight to end, don’t feed the dogs.
Mt. Pleasant Township