The definition of compromise, it is often said, is that whatever is agreed to either angers or disappoints both sides of the debate – and that’s a fair definition.
Part of the problem today’s politics – and, in a broader sense, society – is that we’ve completely forgotten that definition. Instead, the term “compromise” is often used to mean one side getting absolutely nothing, while the other side doesn’t quite get everything they want.
That’s not a compromise, because the winning side doesn’t really give anything up. That’s a victory, just a smaller one.
The winning side can still continue to push for everything it wants, it just has to realize that, for whatever reason, it’s not going to happen at this exact moment. Or, it can be completely unrealistic and blame the weakling “compromisers” on its own side for failing to accomplish absolutely everything it ever wanted. Either way, the issue doesn’t go away – it’s just slightly abated for a little while. That means that, once it eventually gets over childish disappointment over a lack of total victory, it can go right back at it again, slowly moving towards the total victory that it craves.
The losers in this debate know this, of course. They know they didn’t get anything on their side in return for a few of their people caving, and they know their opponents will never give up. They’re never satisfied – the issue never goes away. No matter what the losers do, even if a few of the people on their side supported the supposed “reasonable compromise,” they gain absolutely nothing for it. They will still be blamed and vilified for failing to go far enough, rather than getting any kind of credit for it. They’ll still be the subject of attack ads over it, no matter how they vote.
All of this drives home the one point: Why compromise at all?
The victors will never rest. There will be no grand compromise. The issue will never be off the table. The few “good guys” who voted for the half measure on the losing side will be vilified forever nonetheless – they simply face the prospect of being vilified not only by their opponents, but by their supposed allies as well.
Once one understands this basic dynamic – the gulf between the definition of compromise and what we see actually happening so often – it’s easy to apply it to many supposed deals reached in American politics these days.
Take, for instance, the budget negotiations here in Maine two years ago. Republicans didn’t really get anything out of the bipartisan supplemental budget at all. Yes, they got Gov. Mills to agree to expand the eligibility for the free cash (no, it wasn’t “heating aid” or “inflation relief”) she was handing out. So, they allowed the governor to mail out more checks to more Mainers in the middle of an election year, an idea for which she and the majority Democrats immediately took credit.
In return, Republicans got what? Exactly nothing. That’s why Democrats made the same move yet again. They’re hoping that they can goad the Republicans into going along with another victory for their side that they can sell as a compromise to the electorate. President Biden tried to do the same with the Inflation Reduction Act. Washington Republicans weren’t foolish enough to actually fall for it.
We see this dynamic at play in everything from immigration to environmental policy and from health care to guns. Both sides are absolutely terrified that if they give their opponents – whether of the other party or their own – even an inch, they’ll take a mile. The problem is that both sides continue to prove this assumption correct. Neither side ever offers to give up on an issue and move on. All they do is take a few moments to lick their wounds before returning to battle.
It’s one thing when this mentality applies to culture war or social issues. It’s quite another when it applies to common-sense areas like fiscal policy or national security.
Surely we can all agree that changes need to be made to Social Security and Medicare to ensure these programs continue to remain viable. Yet Democrats continue to vilify anyone who proposes any changes. This mentality freezes discussion on these issues, and our country deserves better than that. Our country deserves real compromises that solve problems, not half measures that duck the issue and serve as fodder for future attack ads.
Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel
Send questions/comments to the editors.
