Image via WikipediaRead related » A Deal Without a Compromise
[This related article is recommended in its entirety.]
“I opposed the original Bush tax cuts. But I support a temporary extension now. Let’s think about the circumstances. We’re in a horrible economic climate. The entire business community thinks the government is out to destroy them. Do we think raising taxes on small business people is going to improve their willingness to invest and take risks? In other words, the economy did fine in the Clinton years with a 39 percent rate. Eventually, we should return to that. But this is not the moment to take another sledgehammer to market psychology. I’m actually a little depressed by Democrats’ inability to think dynamically about this.”
— DAVID BROOKS, December 8, 2010 (nytimes.com)
Was that so hard to comprehend? I don't think so, if the operative word were "comprehend". What I do believe is very hard is to acknowledge that your opponents are right, even if the concept at issue is elementary in nature and easily comprehended by any rational human being.
Divisiveness, especially based on philosophical issues, is not a bad thing. It's the kind of stimulus everyone can benefit from, because it promotes the single most important catalyst for progress -- rational thought. The trick is to keep the dialog rational, which, of course, is redundant. "Irrational dialog" is the oxymoron fueling the conflagration of flame wars that masquerades as our national dialog today.
Not every partisan difference of opinion needs to be engaged while armed to the teeth. If we pause to catch our breath, we can sometimes see our differences of opinion as not much more than a temporary and minor (in the larger scheme of things) perturbation of an ultimate solution.
Let our goal be perfection itself while we strive to approach it pragmatically and incrementally. So much to do; so little time.
Post 1,506 There; was that so hard?
No comments:
Post a Comment