Almost everyone agrees there should be more compromises in politics. So I’m curious, how would that play out?
While I love the policy debates and the nuances, most people go for the big issues. So, according to the party platforms/my gut, here’s what I’d put as the 3 for each party:
Democrats: Abortion rights, gun control, climate change.
Republicans: Immigration, culture war (say, critical race theory in schools or gender affirming care for minors) , trump gets to be president. (Sorry but it really seems like a cult of personality at this point.)
Anyway, here’s the exercise: say the other side was willing to give up on all three of their issues but you had to give up on one of your side’s. OR, you can have two of your side’s but have to give up on the third.
Just curious to see how this plays out. (You are of course free to name other priorities you think better represent the parties but obviously if you write “making Joe Pesci day a national holiday” as a priority and give it up, that doesn’t really count.)
Edit: The consensus seems to be a big no to compromise. Which, fair, I imagine those on the Right feel just as strongly about what they would call baby murdering and replacing American workers etc.
Just kind of sad to see it in action.
But thanks/congrats to those who did try and work through a compromise!
Apparently in France naming a Prime Minister of the party that won the last elections is a compromise in itself for the President, so I would start with that 😒
I mean, depends on “won.” The far right (RN) had more votes but had fewer seats after Ensemble and the NFP withdrew candidates competing against each other. But then those two parties couldn’t work out a Prime Minister who would survive their first No Confidence votez which I think would trigger another election, one in which the RN would be at a substantial advantage…
So on this one, I think Macron actually did compromise by putting in a Right wing PM who is not Far Right and who will mostly be governing with Ensemble/NFP…