Politics of Compromise, Politics of Extremism
The Washington Times has a piece today called “Which Way to Win?” It compares two political strategies for winning elections: one used by the Democrats of the early 90s and the other used by the Republicans of the early 2000s.
From the article:
“Clinton Politics is the politics of the center. It holds that Americans for the most part, with the exception of irate groups at the edges, are less interested in ideology than in practical solutions to basic problems. People would prefer politics to be polite, civil, and compromise-minded.”
“Bush Politics is the politics of the base,” the authors continue. “A successful leader will stand forthrightly on one side of a grand argument. Then he or she will win that argument by sharpening the differences and rallying his most intense supporters to his side.”
If I had to pick a side, I’d say that reasonable people should be able to compromise on just about anything and walk away feeling like they are better off because of the deal made. An approach that is polarizing by design will, in my opinion, lead to an environment where peace (both physical and political) will be an impossibility.
Which of these approaches is more attractive to you? Do either work? Which would be the most effective in getting people that have never voted to vote?