Thread by @JuliusGoat

It's not that support for Bloomberg means that you've compromised on everything.

It's that support for Bloomberg indicates that you're willing to compromise on anything.

Every candidate represents compromise. It’s never a question of no compromise. It’s a question of how much, how quickly, and what other options you eschew to make it.

As long as you (please) don’t rush to support the authoritarian billionaire while other options remain.

The concept of "compromise" really needs to be examined in our culture.

I've written more extensively about this previously, so I'll just make 3 quick points and be done...

https://twitter.com/jqgregory/status/1229456549585620992?s=20

1) Compromise is a bad unifying principle. It's a tool. A tool requires discernment in its use. A pillow is a fine tool for a comfortable sleep, but a poor one for cutting grass. And a pillow can be used to smother.

To make compromise a good in itself opens it to harmful use.

2) Compromise, like civility, like bipartisanship, are not how you *achieve* a healthy government. They are the *fruit* of healthy governance.

You achieve healthy government when all parties behave in good faith toward good ends. We very obviously don't have that.

3) Empowered people in our society have *never* stopped compromising with people of bad faith, not *ever* once.

I think it's worth investigating who feels entitled authority to compromise, and with whom, and over what, and on whose behalf.

And who feels forced into compromises.

We are not at this terribly dangerous moment because we've failed to make improper use of the comfortable tool of compromise when another tool would have been more apt.

We're here because we followed a trail of compromises here.

Further compromises won't get us out.

/end