Compromise is rarely done today to negotiate for tentative peace between groups. Rather, its goal is to create broad consensus.
Why is that?
Why the need for everyone to “come to an understanding” to form a consensus?
The demon that torments the Murican (and modern) soul is the nagging suspicion that all of its presuppositions are not, in fact, universally objectively true and inevitable.
Our belief, or faith, or ideals MUST be rational (not reasonable) And if rational for some...rational for all!
To suggest otherwise is why we have “safe spaces”.
It goes like this,
If some people, somewhere, don’t agree that (for example) republican forms of government with democratically elected representatives is the best and historically inevitable form of government, then the very fabric of the universe is likely to unravel.
This emotional fear is that if “we” all don’t agree on broad notions of law, morality, ethics, values, government, etc, then our pie chart trajectory of history was all for nought. There’s no point in even going on. Oh, the drama!
Modern man is terrified to ponder the notion that his personal beliefs and ideals will not be universally acknowledged and validated.
You can see this in the way conservatives take personal offense at societies that are not democratic-republics. Or in the way progressives insist that you not only tolerate homosexuals, but that you publicly validate the lifestyle.
You can hear it in the rather liberal usage of the word “we”.
“We” is no longer a specific group. No, “we” is the inevitable ‘everybody’.
You know the memes,
Do we agree with this, that or the other?
Is this who we are?
“We as a nation.”
Of course this begs the question, who is this “we” spoken of so much?
The answer is, “we” are everybody who genuflects to the consensus.
Consensus, you see, is the divine spark in the modern world.
In the absence of consensus the stars will literally fall from the sky! Or something!