But, yes, expecting the current politicians to actually work together to solve problems in a practical and workable way is wishful thinking.
It was you that said, "politics is compromise", so you must understand that damn near every problem we face has already been dealt with through the very action you claim will fix the problems, compromise.
So despite all the compromises that have taken place, these problems persist but you still think compromise is the solution...
Ignoring the fact that compromise is responsible for creating and/or continuing the problems we face while simultaneously insisting that compromise can fix the same problems is an example of cognitive dissonance.
Are you seriously arguing that extremism and unbending ideology is the way to solve problems? Surely, I misunderstand your argument.
False Dilemma Fallacy: involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options.
We see this fallacy a lot around here. If someone criticizes Democrats, Democrat supporters automatically assume the person being critical is supportive of the Republicans when in fact, they could be equally critical of both parties.
What you did not consider was the possibility that I was not making an argument in favor of anything, I was only pointing out the logical fallacy behind the idea that compromise always leads to a favorable outcome.
If it works, it is practical.
Pragmatists wish to exclude other ideological considerations because they wish to avoid morality.
Pragmatism is an "ends justify the means" ideology which states that any action taken to achieve a goal is moral, so long as the desired result was accomplished.
If a homeless man needs a dollar and you do not have any money, you can knock down a little old lady, steal a dollar out of her purse, hand it to the homeless man, and the Pragmatist will say that it was a moral act because it achieved the desired result.
Furthermore, such a rationalization for ignoring ideological principles leads to the fallacy of retrospective determinism, dismissing unintended consequences as inevitable rather than a consequence of the action.
This could be one of the reasons why you see compromise as a solution to the problems that persist due to previous compromises, you have written off the consequences as having not been caused by the action.
So let me ask you, in stating, "If it works, it is practical", do you consider doing what is moral, ethical, and just to be impractical if the desired goal is not obtained?
Conversely, if immoral, unethical, and unjust actions achieve the desired result, are they practical?
I can see that you read and understand my posts.
I didn't bother reading that last sentence because I didn't understand what you were talking about.
