You still need some maximalism to signpost an Overton window wide enough for a fair compromise to emerge. Otherwise all you're doing is hopeless damage limitation, with the window sliding further and further towards the opposite maximalist position until it's the law of the land.
I didn't say "good", I said "fair"; and by that, I mean fair to the majority of people. Whether that's "good" or not, depends largely on one's view of the world.
It is largely a product of Americo-centric modes of reasoning about politics, especially since an overwhelming part of Americans' engagement with political issues is predicated on how the Ds and Rs act and react to each other.
"This nonsense attitude of "the good result is always in the middle of the two arguments" is one the worst failings of modern political attitudes."
I don't read this in the previous argument. I read an appeal not to narrow the Overton window too much.
Accidentally, what do you mean when you talk about a "good result"? Good from which perspective? Conforming to a certain ladder of values, or achievable without bloodshed or further deepening of already bad polarization?
Precisely because the society cannot usually unify on what counts as "good", compromises are, at least, somewhat useful in placating the worst conflicts.
Comments
You still need some maximalism to signpost an Overton window wide enough for a fair compromise to emerge. Otherwise all you're doing is hopeless damage limitation, with the window sliding further and further towards the opposite maximalist position until it's the law of the land.
This nonsense attitude of "the good result is always in the middle of the two arguments" is one the worst failings of modern political attitudes.
I didn't say "good", I said "fair"; and by that, I mean fair to the majority of people. Whether that's "good" or not, depends largely on one's view of the world.
It is largely a product of Americo-centric modes of reasoning about politics, especially since an overwhelming part of Americans' engagement with political issues is predicated on how the Ds and Rs act and react to each other.
"This nonsense attitude of "the good result is always in the middle of the two arguments" is one the worst failings of modern political attitudes."
I don't read this in the previous argument. I read an appeal not to narrow the Overton window too much.
Accidentally, what do you mean when you talk about a "good result"? Good from which perspective? Conforming to a certain ladder of values, or achievable without bloodshed or further deepening of already bad polarization?
Precisely because the society cannot usually unify on what counts as "good", compromises are, at least, somewhat useful in placating the worst conflicts.
I think we already know where the Overton window's extreme ends are. We don't learn anything by having a bunch of famous people endorse one end of it.