Compromise & Negotiation: The Art of the Civil

Greetings all,

Today's Blog is regarding negotiation, compromise and the link this has in politics.

Firstly let's get the definitions

Negotiation - mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement: (1)

Compromise - a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands. (2)

So since we now have the clear definitions let's look at how this works politically.

First step will always be Negotiation and this always starts with both parties starting on their stances a bit like two kids on a seesaw. The next stage is the compromise and this is where BOTH groups concede ground on their 'seesaw' meaning they must move AGREEABLY towards a central point and if they don't then one group gets elevated above the other. 

(The seesaw analogy actually works both in this scenario and physically so easier to picture......I hope)

Now this doesn't mean every ground given is of equal value for example if your opponent grants you something significant such as a deed to an acre of land you cannot give them £10 and say that you are compromising, this just reeks of cheapness. The same applies in the arena of politics and the political spectrum, in any NORMAL situation both parties or ideologies would agree on a situation in more of a centralist point of outcome.

However I will link a clip from the film Stardust (film) that will sound more and more like how many systems in the West are operating. Now I know this is fiction but how they ACT is very much as it appears these days.

Let's take the gun control debate. (Touchy I know)

On one side we have Gun control advocates who scream all guns should be banned and on the other 2nd Amendment advocates. Both these people are entitled to their views, how they go about this compromise however is NOT civil. So we take America in this regard,

Round one - 2nd A's (I can't be bothered to write the whole thing multiple times) agree for legislation to be in place for background checks, G.Cs agree to shut up. 
Round two - 2nd A's compromise further with more security checks, G.Cs agree to shut up
Round three - Well you get the hint accept THIS time the 2nd A's say "no more we aren't listening anymore" to which the G.C.s scream "You need to learn to compromise." 

Now in that EXAMPLE, would you call what just happened a compromise and why? Personally I would say hell no because equal ground was not given by the G.C.s for the ground given by the 2nd As. Instead they held their ground and wouldn't budge on their views or if they did (their silence) they broke that agreement to restart the negotiation closer to their terms.

Now I say this because I care about people thinking critically but here is a thought experiment. Take a piece of paper and draw a line approximately 30 centimeters long, mark A on the left and B on the right. Then at the half way mark draw a line there and call this position B2 but leave A where it is, now further down draw another line only this time its 15 cm long again like before put A on the left and B on the right. Again go half way (7.5cm to any actually doing this) and call this B3. The final step you draw a final line under that only 7.5 centimeters and repeat the steps above. Would you notice a pattern drawing the line at 15cm or 7.5cm? This is how the Left is starting to behave and up until recently the Right have been behaving like position B.

If we used that on the seesaw analogy not changing the position of the pivot what would this result in? You guessed it, side B would be elevated above side A. Now you might ask, "Why is that a bad thing?" My answer is thus, we might be the bigger person because we compromised but being on the high road doesn't work if your opponents hack away at your proverbial feet.

I say up until recently  because President Trump made a nice tactical move in his 'compromise' of the illegal immigrants and their children being separated. The Left cried and said "You cannot split families up", hell this resulted in Samantha STD calling the daughter of the President a cunt (yes Samantha said it so I can as well) so Trump concedes and says "Fine the entire family will end in jail." Well you notice how the Left didn't compromise from their position, hell they got what they wanted which was families kept together and yet they STILL bleat from their position meaning they won't concede ground at their end.
Now for anyone that asks what am I trying to get to about this I answer as such. The art of compromise was designed to find peaceful solution to problems which could've resulted in violence. How many wars were brought to an end because of negotiation? How many fights disrupted? Come on parents how many times have you forced your fighting kids to apologize to each other equally to end a fight. So as a people how are we allowing the political/ideological parties to behave as such, why do we not hold them to the same standards FOR BOTH SIDES. If the Right wing did the same as the Left is currently I would be equally as severe about this.

The only time where this is allowed is IF the act being performed is universally morally reprehensible such as if one side advocated for mass murder or sexual abuse of child and such things, things that as a parent we wouldn't condone happening to our children. Let's put it this way, if you wouldn't allow it to happen to your family you should've allow it to happen to anyone else.

Now to be clear I don't think owning a gun is reprehensible, shooting someone in cold blood IS however. Just to be clear.