Leslie Regier for Congress
No party. No partisanship.
Correspondence may be sent to the following address, but please do not send any contributions at this time.
I think it's worth addressing the c-word: Compromise. In recent years it has become customary to ridicule and put down a group/side/party for being unwilling to compromise. I believe that compromise is not necessarily the answer in all cases. Sometimes civil rights, freedoms, and the Constitution of the United States stand in the way of compromise. This is OK, because that is a scenario in which we use my Third Option, described on my Polarization page.
How about a made-up example. Let's say Mary goes to her neighbor Sue and demands the use of her garage. She's not using all the space anyway. Sue says no. In response, Mary asks Sue to compromise and give Mary half the garage. Sue still says no. Mary then goes running through the neighborhood complaining that Sue is a horrible person who refuses compromise. Is this a valid complaint? No, it is not. Even if Sue is not using of all her space, she has property rights and ownership. This must be respected and a demand for compromise is invalid. To our collective detriment, we have been socialized to immediately defend compromise before we have properly assessed the situation. Just like with my Third Option, we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.
Generally speaking, the situations in which I see a clear validity in compromise are when both sides have agreed upon the destination and it just a matter of negotiating which route to take to get there.
•Contributions will be used in connection with federal elections and are subject to the limits and prohibitions of the Act (11 CFR 102.5).
•Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year (11 CFR 104.3).
Site Content © 2016 by Regier for Congress