Nowadays when political leaders/parties try to exercise greater control over greater areas, the problem becomes this. The aisle is now too wide and it has become impossible for either polarity to reach across and embrace the other, there is no space for compromise anymore.

This is why I am and always will be an anarchist. But before all the right wing loonies start bashing me, I don't condone complete abstinence from rules. I simply want to be realistic about it. Only when society is truly free, and that means free from totalitarian rule and AND free in their own minds, will healthy, sustainable societal structures emerge.

You cannot homogenise what is otherwise a fluid and dynamic system, attempting to organise the world according to mechanistic ideals is as futile as trying to further modern medicine along allopathic principles. Both try to address problems/illnesses by imposing laws/drugs to eradicate specific symptoms that are often misdiagnosed as the cause of the problem. Both, inevitably, fail as well.
McLeodGanja Reviewed by McLeodGanja on . Could you "reach across the aisle?" Everyone seems to wish for a candidate who could "reach across the aisle" --- someone who could compromise with the opposing party in order to get things done. Politicians used to be better at this but seem to have forgotten how it's done. Bush ran as a "uniter, not a divider," but his idea of "reaching across the aisle" seems to be, "Here's what I'm gonna do. I invite you to vote for it, even if you are opposed to it. And, no, I'm not gonna compromise." That's not really "reaching across the Rating: 5