Monday, March 01, 2010

The color 'Compromise'?

"One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised."
Chinua Achebe

"The 'morality of compromise' sounds contradictory. Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don't compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised."
Dale Carnegie

"A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, 'Huh. It works. It makes sense.'"
Barack Obama

The latest and to-strive-for thing here in The United States, is being bi-partisan. Or is it?

Is there something essentially good about compromise (bi-partisanship)? I don't THINK so.

But I bring it up because I heard designer - Isaac Mizrahi, who created Michelle Obama's dress for the State of the Union address - say tonight, on the Joy Behar show, that that Michelle's dress was "so bi-partisan". And hence "good".

Did he mean that it was bi-partisan because it was purple - a mix of red (Republican) and blue (Democratic) as Behar suggested? Isaac Mr Mizrahi agreed with this, but I suspect he just wanted to get on with it and to change the subject.

In any case, he claimed that the dress was "bi-partisan" and therefore good, and further, that the color purple could almost be re-named as the color "bi-partisan".

So ... Michelle wears bi-partisan and her husband wants to be, bi-partisan.

Personally I find Michelle Obama more gutsy than her husband. SHE doesn't appear to be a compromiser.

Have we thrown out "The Decider" merely to replace him with "The Compromiser"? The mind boggles.

Did George W compromise? Did Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter? JFK? Martin Luther King Jnr? Mandela, Ghandi?

Look at the range of what those people claimed to have stood for. And despite the disparities between them, all of them aimed for what they believed in - not espousing 50% of it - with the other 50% of their proposals being what they were AGAINST.

The current sort-of-proposed bi-partisan health care bill is a travesty. It is an abortion (no pun intended).

Taking the worst from both sides of Congress is taking the worst, whichever way you put it.

And talking of congress, will Obama stand by America's gay and bi citizens, supporting the rights of individuals' sexual orientation, as well as promoting bi-partisan?

I don't think so. BI only goes so far.

Or not far enough ...


Anonymous said...

Yes, I too am disappointed in the way that Obama has pussyfooted around and not been the real democratic whip he should have been. He has wasted his advantage by catering to the Democratic Party hacks who are compromised by the contributions of big pharma and big health care. The role of President is not the same as college prof - of love of the intellect, love of the argument, the clever riposte that leaves no scars and makes no enemies. Politics is a blood sport whether you like it or not and Obama does not appear to have the cojones of (ugh) Lyndon Johnson or Franklin Roosevelt.
But do we then throw ourselves into the arms of Ron Paul and his followers? At one time I thought of myself as a Libertarian, but that philosophy has too many opportunities for demagoguery and isolationism is no longer an option in this super-connected world.
So, what to do? Hang on and await the outcome of the next eight months.
Do we have an educated electorate? Hmmmm. Am I a snob in saying I don't think so? Or is the will of the electorate what the Framers had in mind?
What do the fates have in store for the USA? Are we just one more empire doomed to crumble in several hundred years?
I would love to believe in re-incarnation just to see what happens

Kate said...

"The role of President is not the same as college prof - of love of the intellect, love of the argument, the clever riposte that leaves no scars and makes no enemies." - Well said!

Kate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.

Post a Comment