The (Lost) Art of Compromise

All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.

            Edmund Burke, Irish-born English philosopher and political theorist

This past weekend, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he was retiring from the Speakership and leaving a congressional career that spans a quarter of a century.  Members of Congress in general and the Republican Party specifically greeted the news with a certain amount of enthusiasm.  Mr. Boehner was seen as an obstacle to the absolutism that is championed by some politicians – mainly from the Tea Party wing.  Their lack of political maturity and understanding of their profession has caused undue stress among conservatives and in the process, has damaged the philosophy’s perception. 

This is not an article about Mr. Boehner or his legacy.  This is about the job of a representative.  This has more to do with a key ingredient to democracy.  Since the early days, the country has been a philosophical battleground of differing ideas based on differing perceptions and understandings of the Constitution.  As these groups have circled one another, trying to get one piece of legislation passed after another, they have accepted the notion that it is impractical and potentially destructive to try and get everything one wants. 

As George Will once said, democracy is the government of persuasion and insofar as that is true, it requires patience and compromise.  The absolutists in Congress today, with whom I largely agree, are following a policy of brinkmanship.  An all or nothing approach is rarely the right way to go about it.  There are only a few times in U.S. history where that was the case.  Mostly, representatives are tasked with struggling to create something out of the half-loaf. 

Whether the Congress and the Republican Party are any better off with the retirement of the Speaker is one for statesmen to argue.  Whether the country is better off with a contingent demanding that everything go their way simply because they are in a majority, I would say that is an unequivocal “no.”  Republican supporters throughout the country have seen various attempts by the party to muscle through legislation and fail miserably.  They have seen party attempts at forcing “doomsday” choices on the other party blow back in their face.  The reason it happens is because, in part, a failure to compromise. 

Compromise can be an ugly word.  Some seem to confuse it with appeasement.  These attitudes are heightened by people looking at Democrats – in Congress and in the White House – as a personal affront.  Democrats simply represent another, if not mistaken, view point.  To attempt to roll over them, thinking the most decisive victory is the best victory, is political immaturity. 

The American people can understand the notion of give and take as in the course of their relationships – at work, at school, at home.  What they do not understand, because few experience it, is steamrolling others with little to no regard.  With the art of compromise, one puts more pressure on the other side.  The attempt at rationality puts greater focus and more heat on the other side for an equal measure.  Additionally, compromise prevents the other side from a knee-jerk response.  Greater bipartisan support is possible for conservative ideas.

Discourse can be polemic and debates can be vigorous.  However, in the process of making laws and setting policy, the smarter play is compromise.  It is an art that is reserved for adults, reasonable and logical who understand the nature of man.  The art of persuasion requires one to understand others.  An all-or-nothing approach requires nothing but obdurateness.  It requires no thought, interaction, cooperation and, ultimately, no talent or intelligence.  It simply requires a disregard of all others who are not like you.  Conservatism is not like that and nor should politics.  It is not personal.  It is not about the individual but about the whole.

The Fight for 2016

As I watch Donald Trump in the news, this modern-day incarnation of Narcissus travels the country seemingly trying to derail his own campaign with one ridiculous statement after another.  And indicative of an age of runaway Ritalin prescriptions, some angry and misguided people are popping Mr. Trump’s missives like pills.  From a political party that can call its own the likes of Lincoln and Reagan, this vaudeville barker is muddling the message of real conservatives who could make a serious and honorable run for the Oval Office. 

A good friend, and a very intelligent one, refers to Mr. Trump as revolutionary.  I disagree.  There is nothing revolutionary, new or extraordinary about the businessman-turned-demagogue.  History is replete with fringe characters (some good, others not) aspiring for the White House – Aaron Burr in 1800, Hugh White in 1836, Henry Wallace in 1948, George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992.  Beyond U.S. history, a string of such people have sought power and had their supporters and popularity.  Mr. Trump does not represent anything new but he is a new incarnation of an old idea.  Appealing to our baser instincts elevates nothing and will ultimately produce nothing but more acrimony. 

For all the talk from Democrats regarding the homogeneity of conservatism, there are some varied and powerful ideas coming from the candidates who, sadly, are not being heard or so we thought.  In the last few weeks, some of the Republican candidates are making progress in the polls.  For the most part, they are also seen as outsiders without the toxic, ad hominem nature of the front runner.  As we are still nearly a half a year out of Iowa, it is hoped that some of these candidates will be able to dispatch Mr. Trump and allow him to return to whatever he was doing a year ago.

Recently surging in the polls is retired surgeon Ben Carson.  In debates and in conversations, he has shown a serious, quietly humorous and mature voice on the campaign trail.  As the head of the Republican National Convention said, I’m not sure about one who has no political experience gaining the nomination but he stands as a respectful and thoughtful voice.  His measured and articulate position on why the Affordable Care Act is not workable and his support for a guest worker program has earned him some attention.

Carly Fiorina is another polished and thoughtful voice in the Republican race.  The former CEO of Hewlett Packard earned rave reviews after her appearance in the matinee debate a few weeks back.  There is a bevy of videos that show Ms. Fiorina being harangued by one reporter after another on various issues but she has shown poise, what the French call sangfroid.  Her position on a simplified tax code has drawn some interest as well as her criticism of President Obama’s net neutrality policy. 

He is not an outsider but I’ve been a fan of Florida Senator Marco Rubio for a while now.  As a junior senator, he has shown a great deal of political courage for putting out on record his plan to deal with issues such as immigration and budgetary concerns.  Given his background as the son of Cuban refugees, it is not surprising Senator Rubio has steadfastly opposed the president’s moves to normalize relations with Cuba.  It might have been a losing position but his willingness to put himself out there and support his constituents is admirable.  He is young, passionate and articulate.  He represents the potential future of the conservative movement.

There is so much substance among some of the candidates in this Republican preliminary fight that it makes it all the more puzzling that Mr. Trump continues to dominate the political scene.  Some pundits believe that there is no way he will still be around come January but they are likely the same bunch who said the same things months before.  In some ways, Mr. Trump is the realization of the worst fears of cultural critics.  In other ways, he is simply the latest in a long line of societal agitators.  Let us hope that another can appeal to the “better angels of our nature.”