<s>[INST] Politicians get carried away with the semblance of their ideas as opposed to being actually good, whenever you have to make compromises and put things into practice.  I'd be curious to hear your view on the imposed practicality of politics but rather in a more nuanced and sophisticated model than a game. This is a similar question to the one asking about what customers perceive as success and what really is success.  
I came up with the idea of a legislative plateau, where ideas with more perceived value get more legislative attention as they approach shore, but legislative attention turns into legislative obstruction as they actually get passed into a law.  To further nuance this, I'd like to introduce the concept of Time-Banked Governance. 

Time-Banked Governance - where legislative bodies hold each other to a time-sensitive balance of power during periods of rapid change. This concept, in a way, could be described as a saner alternative to the traditional system of checks, and balances which no longer can accommodate or swiftly respond to our rapidly changing world.
 
 More compromise-friendly methods that introduce more limiting values, for our goals could provide new ways of assessing compromise, beyond the perception of right versus wrong and left versus right. 
Why political theorists and scholars tend to shy away from appraisal, and elephants-in-the-room topics with full rigor is hard to understand, what would lead someone to think they are "right" to shy away from these issues, or to think we don't need these discussions to happen more often?[/INST]