Whatever happened to compromise? When I was young (don't you hate ideas that begin this way?), politics was viewed as the art of the “possible.” By that it was meant that even if you didn't get everything you wanted – nor did those who opposed you – both sides got enough through bargaining give and take to be able to accept a deal without losing face. Everyone won.
To be sure, on occasion there was a filibuster in the Senate, but it ran its course. Those who participated were exhausted, and the rest of the chamber got some extra sleep. And then they all moved on – perhaps to pass whatever was being filibustered, or to alter it to make it acceptable to those who were unhappy, or to consider the next item. But they moved on and accomplished their work. Even a “do nothing” Congress got work done, if not always to the pleasure of all observers. The good of the county seemed to be the top priority.
Conference committees debated differences between House of Representatives and Senate versions of legislation, and usually managed to formulate a text acceptable to both. Having put some “wiggle room” into their positions, the various sides in a dispute could magnanimously concede points here and there and still claim victory when agreement was reached. And agreement was usually reached. It was generally the case that public opinion was in the “middle of the road” and the eventual solution of whatever problem was at issue found its way to that place.
Unfortunately, though, we have become more and more polarized. Our leaders maintain that they cannot give in to views that are wrong – out of touch with our country's needs and with the position of the American People. In reality they are staking out their positions for the next election: they're populists who are “standing on principle.”i There's no compromise between right and wrong.ii And they're hoping that the principle will garner the support of enough of the voters to bring them victory. Just to be sure, they use polls and focus groups as the sources of those “principles.” Before they take a position it's important to be sure that it will play well. The good of the party is the top priority. And the result will be that nothing gets done because the other side wouldn't compromise. At least that will be the claim. The reality will be that nothing gets done because neither side will compromise.
But that's fine with the participants. They don't want anything avoidable to get done.iii At least not before the election. After that the lame ducks can defend the principle (if they lost in their bid for reelection) or vote on remaining legislation for what they declare to be the good of the country (if they won). At the very least, the election results will serve as a guide for what positions they should be taking on the various issues.
But it is a mistake to view pig-headedness as solely an affliction of politicians – at least those we usually think of as politicians. Some of the labor strikes and lockouts have a vituperative edge which seems to be brought on by unions and management with “my way or the highway” positions. Notwithstanding difficult economic times, unions may refuse to (publicly) consider givebacks of gains they made in better times, even when the cost to the public is difficult to defend. And in the face of large profits, some businesses deny any intent to share their wealth with those who have earned it for them. And taxpayers are becoming more and more frustrated when they see benefits going to public employees that far exceed those they receive. Even so, no one will look for a satisfactory middle ground. Take no prisoners.
There is even less consideration given to the negotiated settlement of international disputes. “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” That may have been Winston Churchill's approach but it's so old-fashioned. More accept the (older in age but more in keeping with the goals of modern tyrants) idea that "War is an extension of politics by other means."iv So the threat of war always looms over negotiations – especially those which include non-negotiable demands. v The intent, clearly, is not to negotiate, not to engage in a process which may require compromise, but to have your way no matter what it takes. We're back to the “my way or the highway” method of “give-and-take” except that it's all “take” and there's no “give.” And the highway is mined.
But what is probably the most vicious, and the least thought-out, example of the phenomenon is divorce. A “partner”vi scorned can create a hell of a situation. And a divorce for another reason can lead to the same result. Too often there's no room within the fury for compromise. The goal is to penalize the other party and no concession by him or her will be acceptable, nor is there any chance that any concession will be offered, because the passion to punish is shared by both participants, and it is fanned by their representatives. “Collateral damage,” even to their children, is a price they're willing to (have the children) pay. For a variety of reasons, divorce is far more prevalent now than when I was young – perhaps in part because of the belief that compromise is something only the other party should do. We live in an all or nothing world. And we all make the mistake of backing our opponent into a corner. Or maybe it's not a mistake but done intentionally. You can be sure that tactic will make compromise impossible.
That's the way to be sure there will be nothing for anyone.
Next episode: “The Continuity Of Humanity" -- Toward a better future.
i The mere threat of a filibuster is enough to end the debate and establish the patina of principle.
ii As Barry Goldwater said in the Presidential election of 1964, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” It's all a matter of how you frame the debate and the positions to be compromised.
iii What's not avoidable are bills that the voters want passed and for which they fear they'll be blamed if things are still up in the air on Election Day.
iv On War by Carl von Clausewitz.
v It's even more difficult when the non-negotiable demands are the precondition for negotiations on other issues, as is the case with the Palestinians demands of Israel.
vi Man or women. Same or opposite sex.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.