Left just as guilty of not compromising
I had a chuckle as I read E.J. Dionne’s opinion piece (“Trump stumbles upon the truth of political posturing,” Opinion, Jan 12). He writes that “what were once widely seen as moderate, commonsense solutions are pushed off the table by a far right that defines compromise as acquiescence.”
Last I checked, compromise was defined as an agreed-upon solution by two parties who both willingly give up certain things to achieve a solution. That is in stark contrast to surrender, which is when only one side unwillingly relents.
Dionne fails to recognize that the left is as guilty as the “far right” for preventing agreement. They are just as unwilling to relent on what they want. When was the last time they willingly offered anything as a means to achieve an agreement?
Redefining “surrender” as “compromise” is always convenient when pointing fingers at the other side of a disagreement. But when it is the pot calling the kettle black — as it is here — it is a sure sign that there is no real intention to compromise from those who are demanding only surrender.
DAVID R. BOAG, FAYETTEVILLE
Diplomacy and peace still possible
I can only imagine how families in Hawaii must have felt when they heard the alert sound with the false news of an imminent nuclear attack. Their fear must have been so intense.
All this in a climate of heightened rhetoric and the Pentagon preparing for a war with North Korea they don’t even want. All this, as North and South Korea open up a phone line to discuss how they will participate in the Olympics.
Diplomacy begins with finding even a small area of common concern. Peace is possible, if we prepare for that as robustly and intentionally as we prepare for a war we don’t want.
SUSAN MAY, ATLANTA
About the Author
