Originally posted by @mchill
In reading through these many posts, and talking to others, it seems the left and right wings are so far apart on so many issues they can't seem to agree on anything (except that they dislike each other). For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation, it was called "compromise" neither side got everything they wanted, but b ...[text shortened]... framers of our constitution intended, or will gridlock be the permanent state of our government?
As a white man, Mchill presents an absurdly overidealized view of the history of US politics.
"For 200 years left and right wing lawmakers worked together to craft legislation ..."
For most of that period, all (or almost all) American lawmakers were white men.
Don't white nationalists yearn to return to the 'utopia' when only white men could vote or hold public office?
"It was called "compromise" "
Here's a famous example:
"The South prevented adoption of the Wilmot Proviso that would have outlawed slavery
in the new territories, and the new Utah Territory and New Mexico Territory were allowed,
under popular sovereignty, to decide whether to allow slavery in their borders."
'Popular sovereignty' meant that the majority of voters (white men) in a state or territory
could decide whether or not slavery would be legal there.
"A more stringent Fugitive Slave Law was enacted."
The Compromise of 1850 essentially 'kicked the can down the road' on states' divisions over slavery.
And when this system of 'compromise' broke down, a consequence was the US Civil War.
So when one white politician demands that a black person stay a slave and another white
politician asks that the slave be set free, exactly what 'compromise' would Mchill endorse?
In order to appease as many white people as possible, could Mchill find a way to regard
this black person as both 'half-free' and 'half-slave"?
Abraham Lincoln criticized this kind of facile 'compromise', apparently endorsed by Mchill:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure,
permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do
not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all
one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of
it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of
ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all
the States, old as well as new — North as well as South."
--Abraham Lincoln (16 June 1858)
Lincoln apparently believed that no compromise is practicable upon some fundamental issues.