In a Pit thread, Der Trihs said something insightful. (Yeah, yeah, snark about the source elsewhere–he did.)
I think this is a good description of how to do political negotiation, & how not to.
In fact, I’ve been putting off starting a thread referring to this principle, & Der Trihs reminded me of it.
And then today, I made the argument that Domestic Partnerships might be acceptable where gay marriage is not (I’m not sure this is true, but it’s a classic, “Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” argument)–& got this response in another Pit thread:
Ergo & henceforth, I propose to consistently push a position as deviant from the status quo–but in the direction I find desirable–as I can stand. E.g., I believe in a British-style National Health Service, & will advocate for same. I know that many will find that extreme; that’s the point. The more of us who advocate for that, the less our country will think Canadian-style Medicare is extreme.
On the other hand, trying to pitch something that’s already a compromise is a good way to get nothing. If we advocate for Swiss-style health insurance on the basis that it’s as close to American as you can get, would we make any progress?
Pitch a proposal away from the status quo & away from the “possible.” Then compromise on the possible.
I don’t really mean this to be health-care thread specifically; though I’d be willing to let it drift there. What other policies can we apply this principle to?