Most public discussions (at least most public discussion that I heard or read) these days aim at completely and utterly wrong goal. They are generally organized into a competition of sort, with two sides attempting to establish who is "right." Both sides would present all kinds of arguments, from real to outright made-up, from statistics to religious texts, from rational to emotional, to convince the other and an audience that they are The Right Way. Strangely enough, although they always state their goals as convincing and changing minds, this kind of discussions rarely, if ever, convince anyone or change any mind. In fact, people (from the competitors to the audience) usually believe more strongly to pre-discussion beliefs after each discussion. Now, don't get me wrong, they entertain well. They resemble gladiator fight, except more cultured and less violent. However, fun usually hinders productivity. In this case, it just throws productivity out of the window. After all, how can you reach an agreement when each discussion drives the participants a little further? Thus, the democratic government becomes tyranny of the momentary majority, who tries to push as many of their policies out as possible while they retain majority. And the whole country suffers.
When you think about it, winning rarely matters in public discussion. After all, most, if not all, countries in existence have done just about wrong things in the books. Does a country kill? When outsiders threaten the lives and dignity of her citizens, when the future of her children is at risk, a country would kill. Does a country discriminate? Citizens risking lives and limbs are treated differently, and justly so, from criminals. However, the differences between defensive and offensive wars, as well as between wars and concentration camps, as well as between medals to veterans and racism, are vast. A country killing its enemies is different from one sending minority to concentration camps; a country decorating its heroes is different from one denouncing a whole race to servitude.
Thus, for public matters, the question is not what. A country, and its government, should, and would, do anything for its citizens. The question is how and when. When a country goes to war determines its foreign policies. How a country discriminates between citizens speaks of its soul and values. All other matters are similar. A country will print money, in both deflation and hyper-inflation. A country will impose taxes and duty, in boom and in bust. A country will re-distribute wealth, upward or downward, fair or indiscriminately. Public discussions, likewise, should concern itself mostly with how and when. They should always aim at a well-rounded compromise with manageable risk.
Remember: compromise is not about lack of principles. After all, a person without principles does not need to compromise, for such person has nothing to compromise. No agreements go against his principles, because he has none. Compromise means recognition the lack of omnipotence: everyone makes mistakes, so let's manage the risk and ensure that all voices, all values contribute to the end result. Furthermore, when a person discusses with compromise in mind, her ego is not on the line, and she can decide without losing. When noone loses, everyone wins, and public discourse can proceed.
I sincerely hope that as 2016 looms, our discussion will gear away from "winning vs losing," and toward actions and results. After all, I gain nothing when my representatives win, but I will lose a lot when they spin the wheels. Let's get moving!
