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 Return of the Boys of Summer

With the advent of the 2015 baseball season at hand, I would like to share a quote by the baseball philosopher George Will on the position of baseball as a true democracy's sport.

Baseball suits the character of this democratic nation. Democracy is government by persuasion. That means it requires patience. That means it involves a lot of compromise. Democracy is the slow politics of the half-loaf. Baseball is the game of the long season, where small, incremental differences decide who wins and who loses particular games, series, seasons. In baseball, you know going to the ballpark that the chances are you may win, but you also may lose; there's no certainty, no given. You know when a season starts that the best team is going to get beaten a third of the time, the worst team's gonna win a third of the time. The argument over 162 games: that middle third. So it's a game that you can't like if winning's everything. And democracy's that way too.

My friends may disagree but as a wise man once said, "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas."

The Need to Reverse the Prevailing Winds

This past week, I came across an old episode of Firing Line – the William F. Buckley show where he interviewed various prominent figures.  The show paired the noted conservative thinker with the famed philosopher and activist Noam Chomsky.  The topic of conversation was the Vietnam War and the appropriateness of the conflict.  As I watched these two learned individuals, it dawned on me just how far we have digressed in our current political arena.  It is clear that what journalists expect of themselves and their audience has changed radically over the years. 

William F. Buckley was my political inspiration; the man who shook me from my general ambivalence and provided a prise de conscience to the importance of intellectualism and conservatism.  In his show, he was unapologetically adroit and demanded that his audience keep up, refusing to minimize or trivialize his subject matter.  The people he invited were equally demanding, speaking at the highest levels.  Together, Mr. Buckley and his guests represented the highest form of political and social discourse.  Additionally, the erudite, conservative thinker also had a shockingly biting sense of humor that left his audience wondering if they actually heard correctly.  On one occasion, Mr. Chomsky asked if his opponent remained seated on his Firing Line show because he couldn’t think on his feet.  Mr. Buckley, in his slow and deliberate drawl, responded, “It is hard to stand up under the weight of all that I know.” 

When held against the famous debates between Mr. Buckley and men like Gore Vidal, James Baldwin, Saul Alinsky and the aforementioned Noam Chomsky, what stands as political discussion today does not even deserve the characterization of a “cheap imitation.”  Such labeling would suggest an attempt to maintain the standards of those previous shows, however seldom achieved.  The pundits found on CNN, MSNBC and FOX are deplorable and not worthy of comparison.  There are a handful of people who consistently elevate the discussion – men like George Will and Bill Kristol.  Yet, they too must submit themselves to the altar of television commercialism and superficiality.  The yelling and lack of proper discourse often forces one to wonder when or if the adults will ever rescue our “news” from the ditch in which it seems firmly entrenched.   

What would be the benefit of the return of such programming?  That answer could fill pages but in short, it would re-establish the importance of being informed, something to which the American electorate seems, at times, unwilling to submit themselves.  Mr. Buckley once said that, “The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”  Like history, politics and the issues of today are best consumed in a medium that allows for the greatest exposition.  This, hopefully, can engender greater, more informative discussions rather than the tendency to speak in slogans.  Newspapers of today are responding to budget cuts by providing less, making their product irrelevant.  If they are to go the way of the dinosaur, best to go out with the highest demands and standards as possible.     

A second point suggests an appropriateness of serious discussions over serious issues where quick attempts to simplify and marginalize are the order of the day.  Last weekend, the Documentary Channel aired a show that featured a 1963 roundtable discussion between James Baldwin, Joseph Mankiewicz, Charlton Heston, Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando and Sidney Poitier on the subject of civil rights.  All the men had recently attended Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march upon the capital.  In a solemn and disciplined tone befitting the seriousness of the subject, they discussed.  Our society has a tendency to be sarcastic and “funny” in order to be entertaining but the worth of discussion stems from the exercise itself.  Much like education where subjects should be considered interesting in and of themselves, the journalists and philosophers need the intellectual room to allow ideas to breathe.  

Lastly, such programming would bring us away from the edge of the chasm, the bottom of which is littered with more modern shows and reinforce the need of bigger ideas.  We are drowning in small and insignificant notions and we are the worse for it as a society.  Some would say that are world no longer allows for this and it goes against the prevailing winds of technology and society.  Yet, imagine what would be possible if our leaders, those who cover them and the public demanded more.