On air: How much should politicians compromise?

On many occasions, politicians have just rhetoric when addressing the general public. The seek to tell them what they want to hear and claim to have the best solutions.

Convictions can be set aside when compromise is needed or when "national interest" is involved. The USA has prided itself on being the champion of democracy and yet it was the ally of former dictator governments, mainly in Latin America. It was the supporter of the Chilean dictator Pinochet, just to give an example.

As in politics,there are no permanent friends or enemies, there will always be manoeuvres to steer policies to the winning or the strong side. As in many countries, no single party can secure a comfortable majority to form a government, there will always be a need for the combination of compromise and convictions to secure staying in power or sharing it instead of remaining in or returning to the opposition.

The US, you don't really need to make a political compromise, because we dont' have to form governments like parliamentary systems do. Sure, nothing may get done, but at least you'll have a government, whereas in Europe, you might have to make deals with unsavory parties to get a government into place...


These coalitions can also be quite dishonest. I recall the recent British coalition with the defeat of Labor, and Cameron and Clegg were making it like they were having a love affair with how they were such a team now. You know that's going to last until elections, then they will be bitter enemies. It's just phoney.

To get into positions of power nowadays means that your integrity has already been compromised. The political system is based on giving favours in exchange for support. The more powerful the lobby group, the more favours and influence it has on politicians. In the end, it's not the politicians who decide policy, it is the lobby groups and those with influence who decide.
Getting into power is more important than serving the will of the people.

The UK's apparently thoughtfully-compromising Klegg and Cameron are a refreshing, if sometimes frustrating, contrast to our scorched-earth zero-sum blood baths in the US where the only winners are the corporations and billionaires who pay for representation. I'll take respectful compromise over rigid ideology any day.

I wonder if coalition government and the compromise it necessitates (on both sides) isn't the national reincarnation of the international Realpolitik of the last century. Realpolitik never questioned the integrity of the participating nations' ideals/ultimate goals when they compromised, and I think the same holds true for political parties who compromise in coalition. I think the British model of compromising coalition members has real integrity, but the way the ultra-conservatives are refusing compromise and undermining the coalition in the present Israeli government misses the point of coalition and makes for a dysfunctional government.

Without trying to be cute, politics requires compromise where this is possible and conviction when it is required. Getting these right isn’t too difficult, though getting them wrong occurs so often many people consider it an impossible task. As with all jobs, getting a good start is the key to early and continued success. Certainly honesty, morality, love and humor play a part in a politician’s success; but most important is dedication of his or her national life to correct service to all the people of the nation. In this regard, those wishing the opportunity for public service won’t go too far wrong if they would but read and follow the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath.
g

A golden opportunity for Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats to craft a real niche in governing along with the Conservatives. Nobody really expected the Lib Dems to have governing power. But this is Nick Clegg's chance to grow strong roots and show his political acumen as Deputy Prime Minister. The Lib Dems have come from the political wilderness to make a strong stamp on British politics. British voters have greater choice as the whole British political landscape undergoes a metamorphosis. The Labour leadership will have to rethink its strategies if it wants to outwit the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. Strange things happen in politics!

Nick Clegg has a special problem. He has to prove that coalition government works in Britain to get the reform of the election system the LibDems dream of.

In the US it seems compromise is a dirty word. Thus the extreme polarization and lack of progress in dealing with issues. People, and not only politicians, act like small children and throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way. It's disheartening to be an American and just watch people scream at each other back and forth without working together. I hope that the coalition government works in Britain.

Bill Clinton compromised too much, deregulating finance and setting the stage for the current financial crisis. He was forced to under pressure during the Monica Lewinsky crisis. He should have either come right out and said "yes I had an affair, what of it?" or he should have resigned. Obama also has compromised too much. He should have come out fighting investigated the push for going to war in Iraq and failures that led to the collapse of the twin towers. He was naive to think that Republicans would work with him.

What politicians want more than anything else is POWER.
Hearing the conversation of right and left wing points of view on the show I really like the current coalition in the UK because to stay in power it forces them to work together and giving workable solutions to the people.
This probably helps the public opinion of the politicians because in a sense there is no victor or vanquished.

Compromise and cooperation is a big lesson we could learn here in the states. I've been so disappointed since Obama came into office. My conservative republican party has turned into a group of closed rank idiocrates, unwilling to work the issue to better the country. Making Obamas' work that much harder!

I think a government comprised or 2 leaders from different parties would be great. I would have loved to have had McCain as President and Obama as Vice-President. It would have made for a strong government and Obama would be perfectly placed to learn and carry on.

Martin Luther King DID compromise. He could have been more like Malcom X. I seriously doubt he would have been successful if it were not the threat of violence from Malcom X.