The Case for Compromise
By Jason Johnson | Thursday, September 30th, 2010 | PolicyIn case you missed it, a riveting discussion is occurring in response to Brian Schoeneman’s recent post “Time To End Statewide Conventions.” In the comment section, several readers are lamenting the tendency of “establishment Republicans” to compromise with the opposition—an often-heard complaint within the conservative movement today. With all due respect to those possessing a contrary opinion, the problem is not compromise—conservative political icons from James Madison to Ronald Reagan have all made compromises with their opponents—the problem is actually bad compromises.
In any society, decisions about government action will be made one of two ways: war or politics (this includes monarchical regimes where decisions are made by fiat). In our western, liberal democracies, compromise is the basis for the legislative process. Not only do compromises sometimes improve legislation, compromise undergirds the legitimacy of our political system. Unless all parties feel their interests and/or concerns have been heard and addressed, any decision made will lack legitimacy. (Examples of illegitimate legislation include (historical) Britain’s Stamp Act of 1765 and (contemporary) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010). While there are certainly lines our legislators should never cross in the pursuit of comity or legitimacy, we should never be afraid to compromise on issues where strategic compromises can advance the cause of conservatism.
James Madison entered the Constitutional Convention with his Virginia Plan, which would have instituted a unicameral national legislature with representation apportioned by population. To keep the convention, and the dream of a United States of America alive, Madison compromised. Today we have a unified nation and a bicameral national legislature whose system of checks-and-balances is an important firewall defending our liberties. Similarly, in 1789, William Wilberforce proposed a bill that would have abolished the slavery in the British Empire. It was defeated handily, yet rather than accept defeat Wilberforce compromised and promoted a bill that would end the foreign slave trade. Wilberforce’s willingness to embrace a compromise did not mean that he found human bondage to be any less revolting, but instead he made a strategic compromise based on the current political climate. Wilberforce’s decision was vindicated as it helped to alter the political climate, leading to the eventual abolition of slavery by 1834. Had Wilberforce not been willing to make a strategic compromise, he might well have been marginalized as a curmudgeon; today he is regarded as the godfather of Britain’s abolitionist movement.
Similarly, if Republicans compromise with Democrats just to get along, to receive adulation from the media or to receive invitations to Washington’s cocktail parties, their compromises only hurt the cause of conservatism. Conservatism, however, has much to offer our nation and should not be hidden beneath a bushel simply because its purity might be compromised during the legislative process. There will never be a perfect time to advance pure, unadulterated conservatism, therefore if we wait for such a time, conservatism can never advance. Yet, if like Madison and Wilberforce, Republicans make strategic compromises that might exchange short-term setbacks for long-term gains—gains that can favorably alter the cultural and political climate of the nation—or that, by injecting conservative ideas, might make otherwise odious legislation more tolerable, those compromises will be wise strategic moves that conservative Republicans should be proud to support.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A lifelong political junkie, Jason caught the political bug as a fifth grader after meeting George Allen in 1993. Since then he has studied political science at both the undergraduate and graduate level. When not perusing the blogs or volunteering for conservative Republicans, Jason enjoys cheering on his beloved Virginia Tech Hokies and spending time at his Bedford County home.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
11 Responses to "The Case for Compromise"
Jason – Excellent article! I’ve noticed that our “establishment Republicans” has the ability to compromise with the liberal Democrats. Meanwhile, conservatives (especially women and blacks) are attacked for supporting smaller government, fiscal responsibility, the Free Market or any other conservative value. Here are some compromises that have gotten us nowhere:
IMMIGRATION REFORM. Ronald Reagan provided amnesty in hopes of getting immigration reform. 30 years later, we are still arguing amnesty. I can’t even believe this is being debated…build the damn wall.
TAXES. Nearly 100 years ago, a 1% income tax was instituted on the rich (class warfare). Now, we’re talking about taxes anywhere from 15-40% depending on how much you make. Of course, the irresponsible Obama is going to introduce a VAT tax.
Medicaid was to help the poor, Medicare is to help 65 and over. Now, we have Obamacare. Hell, they couldn’t take care of the healthcare for the small demographics they have now. We only know how far the government will probe into my health.
The inner city education (Dept of Education) is worst now than ever before. The Post Office can’t function… Have Conservatives compromised enough? How many examples do we need that the Federal government does not create prosperity? Thanks again Jason
NOTE – And Mike thinks his third world roads is going to be high on the priority list.
Very well written. I’m really tired of any Congressman that’s willing to cross the aisle and actually get something done being called a RINO or DINO. Making the right compromises is important so that people can’t keep pushing this image of the GOP as the “Party of No”. If the Republicans were willing to compromise intelligently, they’d see a lot more Independents on their side.
From what I have been reading, it has been Obama and the democratic dodos that have been the party of No. They are the ones that have refused to compromise. It has been do exactly what we want or we will call you racist extremists.
Perhaps the dodos that survive 11/02/2010 will be more willingly to compromise. Some people think that the 2012 campaign starts on 11/03/2010.
Brilliantly done, and timely.
Jason, I’m impressed – this is a great article and I’m even more impressed by the fact that all of the comments here are positive. If I’d have put this up, someone would be egging my house right now!
Brian – how about we egg it anyway?
Jason – great post. I agree with it 100%. There is nothing wrong with positive, incremental, rational conservatism. Shifts in public policy need not always have to feel like someone is ripping off a band-aid.
“..the problem is actually bad compromises.” +1
Part of the problem is that either party tends to make bad compromises when it is convenient for them. We will see more of this when the president has more limited powers via less support in the house. It would appear that this may be an issue forcing hardline dems to abandon what may become a doomed titanic episode for the potus if he refuses bipartisan compromise.
Gingrich passed a bill defending the minority voice in the House a long while back that has fallen through the cracks of time.. Since 06, republicans have not been able to overcome the majority in the House, in effect, making them unable to influence crucial discussions for the past 18 months. During the era of Gingrich, many folks felt that Clinton was a good president because “he” balanced the budget, which he did through somewhat reasonable compromise with a bipartisan republican congress. I thought he was good back then too being the misinformed democrat I was at the time.
One of my major concerns I hear from independent tea party activists is that the heavy hand of either establishment majority will yet again silence the minority opposition and squelch meaningful and thought provoking debate before signing bills. My question for some time has been which candidates have the foresight to proactively and openly debate conservative ideas without alienating the masses and how to go about supporting them at the local level.
This is near the core of why I am very concerned about a Rigell candidacy as you can surmise but this post is not about the present candidates as much as it is about your article about the case for compromise.
Excellent post.
Compromise is acceptable, so long as it is in the direction of liberty.
Peggy Noonan had a good article a week or so ago when she pointed out that the reason why compromise has gotten a bad name with the Tea Party and others is that the compromise has never been in our favor.
An example she used was the Democrats ask for $1 trillion, we say 0, they respond with $700 billion and we say “okay!” and then claim to have saved $300 billion.
That’s bad compromise.
Here’s an example of good compromise: they ask for $1 trillion, we ask for $1 trillion in cuts and we compromise at 0.
At the end of the day though, most compromise is never that easy because we’re rarely dealing with numbers. When you’re putting policy positions on the table, it’s much harder to come up with what is a fair middle ground. That’s where we often lose people on our messaging, as it’s difficult to explain that you were able to cut one bad policy out in return for losing one good policy, plus a chance to vote on X or whatever. People’s eyes tend to glaze over when you talk about stuff like that, although it’s critical for that kind of thing to happen.
I am looking forward to a Republican Congress (knock on wood) that can force compromise in our direction. We have to be able to pull harder on the Democrats than we have in the past.
I had the opportunity to visit with a conservative radio show host out west last weekend, Jim Pfaff. Jim is a lot more conservative socially than I am, so I was surprised to hear that to him, compromise is acceptable (even desirable) in moving the conservative platform forward! (I always especially expect conservative radio hosts to summarily beat me over the head with right-wing dogma.) For instance, he suggested that instead of pushing to repeal Roe v. Wade, he could agree as a first step with abortion that is only legal in the first-trimester. (Yes, he is a die-hard conception-to-natural-death pro-lifer.) Or, he suggested, why not go and talk to the GLBT community about issues like life, lower taxes, and individual liberty? (Yes, he considers homosexuality a “sin,” no worse than, say, gluttony.)
Jim gets an excellent reception when he goes to speak to historically “liberal” groups (environmental, for example) and I can see that the most die-hard Democrat would have a hard time not enjoying talking politics over lunch with Jim, and seeing where they see eye-to-eye.
Any errors in perception of Jim here are mine alone, but I share this to add a “Hear, hear!” to JR’s comment about ripping off the bandaid. These small shifts will be the answer, and talking about things in terms of small shifts will make the conservative movement successful in bringing in new voters. It’s a big tent! Yes, we do want even the RINOs (because your RINO is my moderate Republican- and I’d rather have him or her HERE and voting, than over there to the left, as a moderate Democrat, voting).
The art of compromise is something I teach my children on a weekly basis. I admire a Congresswoman or man who is willing to step across the aisle and create these small steps forward, for the sake of our country. I know Scott Rigell will be this kind of Congressman, and I look forward to January with tremendous hope.
Thanks for the positive feedback!
Brian and JR: I’ll do you one better…I spent the day (before the Virginia Tech game, of course) removing toilet paper from the trees in my yard!
Turbo: I understand your point and that is yet another reason I admire Newt. In one of my graduate classes, I had to read a riveting book that you might enjoy: “Fight Club Politics”. The book, written by a Washington Post reporter, chronicles some of the heavy-handed tactics both parties employed during the Hastert and Pelosi eras to squelch the opposition.
Brian’s point is great, too: compromise is never fun nor is it pretty (the old sausage factory analogy), but that’s the system the Framers gave us. It has served us well for over two centuries and, if we can get beyond the mind-set that politics is a zero-sum game,it will continue to serve us well for many years into the future.
JR is right, too: policy shifts need not be dramatic; I think that’s one HUGE reason the president and his party are standing on the edge of the political abyss–they tried to take the country too far to the left too fast. If Republicans can learn from this to gradually, incrementally advance a bold conservative agenda, compromising where necessary and, as Jessica’s friend has demonstrated, always reach out to voters–even those not predisposed to support us–all while respecting the rights of the minority, the GOP will have a great opportunity to do something very special in the 112th Congress and beyond.
Leave your response