"This nonsense attitude of "the good result is always in the middle of the two arguments" is one the worst failings of modern political attitudes."

I don't read this in the previous argument. I read an appeal not to narrow the Overton window too much.

Accidentally, what do you mean when you talk about a "good result"? Good from which perspective? Conforming to a certain ladder of values, or achievable without bloodshed or further deepening of already bad polarization?

Precisely because the society cannot usually unify on what counts as "good", compromises are, at least, somewhat useful in placating the worst conflicts.

I didn't say "good", I said "fair"; and by that, I mean fair to the majority of people. Whether that's "good" or not, depends largely on one's view of the world.

It is largely a product of Americo-centric modes of reasoning about politics, especially since an overwhelming part of Americans' engagement with political issues is predicated on how the Ds and Rs act and react to each other.