re: #188 allegro

I keep scratching my head trying to figure out what weird definition of “compromise” he’s trying to use. In my dictionary compromise is both sides giving up something to come to consensus. IMO such things as civil rights and women’s bodily autonomy are just not available for compromise. At that he does the MBF thing and goes “aha! see? I told you”. Then he uses as an example of his idea of compromise as working around those who will not play. That is not compromise, that is strategy.

What I do agree with is more effective messaging/communication on the Democratic side. Something we’ve discussed a lot here. But then we get into the weeds on the media as was so clearly demonstrated during the election. So. I dunno.

He answered that question near the bottom of the essay:

I used the word compromise on purpose.

I used it deliberately and with malice aforethought.

I used it knowing what would happen, how you’d react.

I used it because I knew, I knew, that it would provoke a visceral reaction. I used it because it’s as much a trigger for many of you as it is for those you despise. You hear compromise and instantly your teeth are bared and your fists are clenched. No. No compromise. It’s not up to us to compromise, it’s up to them! No. No compromise. No peace. Die!

But, you see, in those paragraphs describing civil war and reeducation camps up above, the partisan you isn’t identified and as such those statements could apply equally well to the other side - and do.

I said I wasn’t asking you to compromise with hate, but with fear.

The issue is figuring out how to compromise with fear. How to assuage it.

There are a certain number of voters who will be hateful always and forever. Mr. Wright did not ask (and explicitly stated in the essay) that compromise with hate is unnecessary.