The Political Practicality of Compromises

     Bipartite, balanced, bipartisan: such words and phrases constitute the holy grail of  contemporary political speak. The significance of this sort of terminology is obvious,  and is predicated on appealing to the common sense of logic that all human beings share. After all, nobody is conceivably against a joint effort, a compromise. People are conditioned so thoroughly to be satisfied and relaxed at the mere mention of the latter. But, of course, there is a downside to using this sort of externally reassuring language. Evidently, by doing so, the public's sense of what is right and wrong is dulled, as they become increasingly apathetic to the soothing language articulated by the government-and thus, in extension, the media- and lose, or at least temporarily shelve, a vital part of their cognitive and moral conscious. Such a coalescence of morality with government interests is not a healthy state for either by any measure. Now obviously one might remark something to the effect that the government indeed wants people to be, putting it bluntly, dumb and drone-like. However, doing so actually conflicts with government interests in the long-term. As history has shown invariably, as the middle-class grows in wealth and thus power, its development parallels a huge and explosive boom in technology and indeed the general wealth. It is an economical fact that as the wealth of the less privileged increases, so does the wealth of all. Paradoxically, the rate at which the wealth of the upper-classes increased actually slowed over the 1980's to present day when wealth began to disparagingly concentrate more and more in the top socioeconomic bracket. Clearly, a lack of foresight is what holds humanity back; as a collective, it is time to actually strive for such a lofty and yet noble goal for a sustained period of time, meaning not a couple hundred like is the case for virtually all countries and empires, but for a thousand or more years at a time, the periodicity of which should likewise increase exponentially. What a troubling thought it is that despite so many advances in technology and thought human strife has not truly deviated from its primitive roots. Perpetuating the emotional weakness of humans by using such spurious language, preying upon the minds of people to reduce them to self-harming husks, and finally leaving them so confused that they cannot possibly sort out what went wrong is useless. When one makes a compromise, the terms have to be, by definition, fair. Shifting the debate to one side (the conservative side, as in the case in the U.S. and the majority of other instances) is disingenuous.   Thus, loaded words like compromise should actually embody what they claim to contain. On the other hand, there should likewise not be intent to rally emotion against compromise as a cliché. Instead, people should be helped in the obtaining of knowledge that will better society. Knowledge should not be esoteric but exoteric, and despite the current reign of the information age, clearly such is not the case, at least in terms of what counts most, collective humanity. Political leaders should do away with the notion of compromise if it does not allow sufficient room for the moral high-ground. One can even lean slightly to the side of compromise, as long as the majority of stated belief is not eclipsed. By doing so, a whole lot more political capital can be won over if only the one in power, even if the power was procured through promising fealty to larger forces, and one's name can have a much more practical chance of enshrining the coveted annals of history as a great leader loved by both the middle and lower-classes for outright satisfaction, but also ultimately the upper-classes, as they eternally benefit most as a piece of the pie in terms of overall advancement.