Susan Hogarth wrote:
SH) The art of political compromise requires drafting proposals that, even_if_weakened by the opposition, will still provide a net gain for your side. (SH
Despite your "requires", I think I was inaccurate when I suggested elsewhere this morning that you think "the only way to reduce the nanny state is to try turning the dials defined by the nanny staters themselves -- who know exactly what kind of dials are the hardest to turn back." I would change "only way" to "only safe way" -- i.e. the only way in which we're guaranteed not to have regrets of commission. But I worry about regrets of omission too, and how we balance them is I think our fundamental difference. I'd like to allow our candidates a certain amount of liberty to strike that balance for themselves, and to tack into the wind rather than insist they steer directly into it face, and then see which of them makes the most progress against the nanny state.
P.S. I don't want to flood anybody's inbox with another Brian/Susan debate, so I'll try to confine any further response to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPplatform-discuss/.
