The Value of Compromise

Cassandra's Independence Day post warns of radicalism on the right.  Compromise is what made America:
Others saw them as cowardly traitors seeking to undermine the foundations of our system of government. Some in the anti-war movement took dissent beyond mere speech, urging soldiers and Marines to frag their officers. Violence, it seemed, did in fact solve some problems (even if one professed to abhor it). Two polar extremes, each animated by what to them seemed fundamental questions about the role of government, struggled to articulate their positions. The passion of those who hated and feared the Bush administration was matched by those who defended its actions. We were engaged in what - to us - seemed a titanic struggle to define the proper role and the legitimate authority of that government created in 1776 by men who themselves did not agree about a great many things.
A mere seven years later, Americans are still arguing about the role and legitimacy of the federal government. But the two parties do so from different sides and are motivated by different issues. Progressives, now that a Democrat occupies the Oval Office, are all in favor of a strong federal government with an assertive Executive branch. And conservatives of all stripes, now that we're out of power, fear that a strong federal government is in danger of extinguishing the freedoms we hold dear. Different freedoms, and different dreams.... Now it is conservatives who whisper of rebellion and armed resistance; of lack of consent.
These questions have faced every generation for over two centuries. They are not new to us, nor are our current discontents greater in kind or severity than the many follies and abuses that gave past generations ample cause for outrage. The old struggles divide us, still.

If I have one wish for this Fourth of July, it might be that we stop for a moment to contemplate our long history, considering both the great good and the equally great evils this nation has experienced. If we did not consider the governments of the past to be illegitimate when they made very great mistakes, by what rationale do we seek to undermine the legitimacy of our present government, however deeply we disagree with its policies?...
I'm not sure when compromise ceased being the quality that gave us our Declaration in 1776, the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and - when that minimalist framework proved insufficient to the task of governing a handful of former colonies - the Constitution in 1789 and become a threat to the principles outlined in them. The men who signed all three of these documents did not agree about a great many things. To secure their signatures and their consent to the greatest experiment in representative government the world had yet known, compromise was needed.
And if we hope to hold onto what our forebears bequeathed to us, we had better relearn the skills that made our way of life possible in the first place. 
I am not unsympathetic to the idea of compromise.  Back in 2004 -- which I didn't take to be a referendum on the legitimacy of the nation, but on whether we would or would not surrender in Iraq and to al Qaeda -- I wrote the following:
In the next years, we must remember the 55 million [who voted for Kerry]. It may be that some of them can be won over, through argument or through example, or even -- on matters not of principle -- through compromise. Even when not, we must remember that they showed that America is their country too: no one can ever again claim to be backed by the "silent majority." That majority has now spoken, but it spoke on both sides. 
We should remember that they felt all the passion and concern that we did ourselves, and found that doing everything they could only led to the defeat of their cause. That kind of defeat can weaken the Republic, which many of us are sworn to uphold. It weakens it by undermining faith and confidence in the institutions. We must take care to be sure they find fair hearing of their concerns in the institutions that conservatives now control. The government must serve them as well. We should take care to observe the tenets of Federalism, and not use the power of the Federal government to try and influence liberal states according to a general will. We should erect new walls in that regard, so that our disappointed neighbors can still live the lives they want to live in what is also their country. 
That's the kind of compromise I think is sustainable in this country, which is deeply divided on basic values.  If we can't achieve that renewed Federalism -- if we continue to insist on using the vast power of the Federal government to force compliance out of the part of America that disagrees with us -- we will have war whether we want it or not.

Nor is this new.  If we are to grant Cassandra's wish, and re-examine the way in which the nation advanced to its state of flourishing liberty, we will find only some few compromises -- and a great deal of uncompromising violence.  Even where we see compromises, we see them in the context of threats of armed rebellion, secession and disunion.  The Great Compromise arose because Southern and Northern states would not otherwise agree to be bound together.  The Compromise of 1850, which agreed that we would remain half-slave and half-free, arose because otherwise the Southern states would leave the union entirely.  It was granted only at the point of civil war.

If it were compromise that was at the root of liberty, we would have remained half-slave and half-free.  It was Lincoln's uncompromising stance, and hundreds of thousands of dead, that resulted in liberty for the slaves.  The ratification of the Reconstruction amendments was forced by military occupation.  The withdrawal of that occupation was the carrot offered in return for Southern acceptance of a Republican presidency in the Compromise of 1877.  

The late 19th century saw the rise of labor unions as a force in politics.  The compromises they won were won through strikes and clashes with the US Army, whose main duty between the end of the Civil War and the first World War was suppressing unions.  It was their willingness to keep fighting in the face of such suppression that compelled compromise.

Likewise, when desegregation of the schools was commanded by the Supreme Court of the United States, Arkansas called out its national guard in order to resist the command.  It took the 101st Airborne to make that good.  The history of desegregation -- not only in the South, but everywhere -- is marked with bombings, lynchings, terrorism, snipers, and blood.  It was achieved only because the force brought to bear in its favor overwhelmed the force brought to bear against it.  The compromise was the compromise of submitting to desegregation in return for an end to the pain.

The great lesson is that compromise comes only at the point of disunion and violence.  If we have principles we are prepared to insist upon, we must be willing to contemplate -- and indeed, to prepare for -- disunion and even civil war.

That is not to disdain compromise, or to set it aside.  It is, rather, the only way to achieve a compromise on such a basic and deeply-felt matter.  It is the way we have always treated these things.  Conflict is how liberty ever came to flourish at all.

I hope this will be of comfort to my dear friend Cassandra, to whom the murmurings of revolt on the right seem disconcerting and immoderate.  These things do not spell the end of America or its liberty:  they are the root of American liberty, and they have always been its nourishment.  It is only through such mutterings, and sometimes far more than muttering, that our compromises have been achieved.

So take heart, and look to your arms.  We may hope not to need them, but we dare not lay them aside. We must have the option of practical recourse to them if we are to compel the kind of compromise we need.

18 comments:

Cass said...

The great lesson is that compromise comes only at the point of disunion and violence. If we have principles we are prepared to insist upon, we must be willing to contemplate -- and indeed, to prepare for -- disunion and even civil war.

I don't agree. Compromise SOMETIMES results from violence, but not always.

As for disunion, I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean the threat of secession, again I can't agree. But if you mean only that the parties aren't in accord, I'd have to say that if they're in accord then there's no need for compromise :p

A lot of people seem to be reading things into my post. I didn't say, for instance, that compromise is always good or that force is always bad. And no one who has been reading VC for years can reasonably infer that from my long support for the war on terriers.

I made a narrow argument, which is:

"Compromise is not bad in and of itself. It is, in fact, a necessary tactic, without which this country would not exist."

Grim said...

The argument doesn't read as narrow as that, at least to me (and I gather to Elise). For example:

"I'm not sure when compromise ceased being the quality that gave us our Declaration in 1776, the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and - when that minimalist framework proved insufficient to the task of governing a handful of former colonies - the Constitution in 1789 and become a threat to the principles outlined in them."

Compromise here is the quality that gave us the American founding. And that's true, in a way.

It's also true, though, that each of these situations arose at the point of disunion -- either a threat of the breakup of an existing political union, or the actual breakup of one. The Declaration came at the point of a war of secession with England. The Articles of Confederation were as weak as they were because of grave distrust between the colonies, who otherwise were preparing to go their own way. The Connecticut Compromise which enabled the Constitution was again offered at the point at which otherwise things were going to break up.

When you're asking people to compromise their chief interests, it's not surprising that the negotiation goes all the way to the wall. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think our current political turmoil is really necessary: it's in the interest of both liberals and conservatives to adopt a 10th-amendment model that allows for our different deeply-felt values to be fully expressed in the different states.

Yet we're not approaching this question that way. We're approaching the Federal government as a tool for steering the whole nation whichever way we want it to go. The whole nation, though, doesn't want to go in any direction: we don't have the kind of unity of values that would permit that anymore.

What we've got is diversity, and diversity by nature doesn't want any single thing. Either we find a way to allow this diversity to express itself within the system, or the system breaks.

That's the only compromise that seems to me to be capable of answering the problem. Otherwise, we're asking people to compromise the one thing that no good person can compromise: their moral principles.

Cass said...

I don't think our current political turmoil is really necessary: it's in the interest of both liberals and conservatives to adopt a 10th-amendment model that allows for our different deeply-felt values to be fully expressed in the different states.

Only if you arbitrarily redefine the interest of liberals. They see the federal government as the only way to guarantee that the states won't abridge the rights of minorities, women, and now illegal immigrants :p

The problem is that to liberals, inalienable rights include a lot of things that conservatives wouldn't include. Like Internet access :p

And cute puppies. And unicorns with Skittles streaming from their tuckii.

I joke, but they read Liberty to include both positive and negative rights. And we, for the most part, read liberty as the right to be free of govt interference.

WickedFenrir said...

This comes from a fundamental misunderstanding on the ways in which people disagree on things.

Where we disagree on process, compromise in possible. We can liken this to a negotiation of what will go on the pizza that has been ordered.

Prior to this, however, is a requirement that we agree on Principle, namely, that we shall order Pizza, let alone share a meal together at all.

Wicked Fenrir said...

I do not wish to be governed by a federally controlled medical system IN ANY WAY. There is no "compromise" which can be offered in which I have a winning position.

And any position which does not involve Washington in Medical reform is likewise unaccptable to a devout Liberal.

Grim said...

My sense is that they could have all those things at the state level, as long as they could figure out a way to pay for them at the state level. In return for accepting this compromise, they would be released from the fear that the next evil Bush Administration would use the Federal government to dissolve their gay marriages and impose mandatory prohibition. Heck, we could even let the states determine their own laws on marijuana.

So it's not arbitrary: it would let them have everything they want out of government. All it wouldn't do is let them tell Georgia or Texas that they must also guarantee the right to free puppies, or whatever. But it would set them free from the fear that the next Texan president would appoint a SCOTUS that would destroy everything they loved, because SCOTUS and the President would be much less threatening. Most of what gets done would get done as the 10th Amendment intended: at the state level, without much Federal interference.

The Federal role in the protection of minorities is important to liberals, I agree, but more for historical reasons than current practical ones. There aren't any more Jim Crow laws. There isn't any more slavery. The truth is that the Federal government now represents a much bigger threat to the liberal vision than it does a guarantee of it -- at least should it fall into conservative hands, as it does from time to time. All I'm proposing is a kind of demilitarizing of our relationship, by disarming the weapon that is the biggest threat to both of us.

Cass said...

Grim, I'm in agreement with you on federalism. All I'm trying to do is point out that most descriptions of what liberals want or think that I read are not terribly accurate. They're not any more monolithic than conservatives - there's a huge spectrum of beliefs out there!

Cass said...

And any position which does not involve Washington in Medical reform is likewise unaccptable to a devout Liberal.

Are all liberals "devout" though? My liberal friends would all be quite pleased with a solution that allowed them to purchase health care from the private sector. They don't really care who offers it - they only care about being able to purchase a policy.

MikeD said...

"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." I believe that's a quote from Ghandi, but I won't swear to it. But it's one I've heard from quite a few liberal friends. I do not believe they would accept a situation where they could have their liberal utopia in Massachusetts but would be required to accept a conservative one in Texas. I could be completely wrong, but I suspect I am not.

To them, if the poor, or minorities, or women, or fluffy be-Skittled unicorns are "oppressed" in Texas, they'd want to "do something" about it. Most folks who would be content to be "left alone" tend more towards the lividterrier side of the spectrum, and less towards the liberal side.

Cass said...

I do not believe they would accept a situation where they could have their liberal utopia in Massachusetts but would be required to accept a conservative one in Texas. I could be completely wrong, but I suspect I am not.

I suspect you're correct about that, but I also suspect they would be shocked and deeply disturbed to hear that stance described as intrusive or controlling. Part of the problem is in definitions: they think "liberty" includes both "freedom to do what they want" and "freedom from circumstances that limit their choices" (hunger, economic insecurity, etc).

A few summers ago we had a long discussion with my husband's oldest friend over health care. It took a lot of talking to make him see the difference between "can't afford health insurance" and "h/c insurance wasn't his top priority and so he spent money that would have guaranteed him health insurance on other things he wanted more... until he got sick".

Wicked Fenrir said...

Liberals may define it how they wish, my definition of "So long as I am not picking pockets, or breaking legs, leave me alone" leaves no ambiguity of where I stand.

I really don't care if Blue Staters want to institute among themselves confiscatory taxes, mandatory abortions, legalize polyamorous bestiality, institute a quota for personal friendships, tax churches, or in any other way institute their liberal utopia. So long as I can WALK AWAY and say "Good luck with that," it makes no difference to me.

And while I will concede a scant minority of social cons would agitate for a Crusade into these Dens of iniquity, it is a small strain of conservative and Libertarian thought. OTOH, an equally scant minority of liberals would be content with such a thing, as they fear that if given a choice, people will make the "wrong" one.

This is the source of the growing loss of patience with "coompromise" with Liberals. It's always one more thing with them, once more encroachment, one more brick, resulting in my "Are we finally done?" being nickeled and dimed away. It has been one endless road of "Just one more teeny little thing" compromises with the left, with that needle somehow NEVER moving rightward in any of those "Compromises."

We're done with it. Enough. Leave us the Hell alone.

Wicked Fenrir said...

And what you are seeing is not "Stubborn and uncompromising" people who are being buttheads about anything, but the logical result of what happens when you keep pestering an animal and back it into a corner.

What did you really EXPECT would happen?

Cass said...

...what you are seeing is not "Stubborn and uncompromising" people who are being buttheads about anything, but the logical result of what happens when you keep pestering an animal and back it into a corner.

Who is this straw person you are arguing with? But perhaps more importantly, what are we to take from your comment? That conservatives who oppose compromise are acting like animals?

I get it - you're angry. So am I. So what?

Anger is an emotion. If both sides refuse any solution that doesn't give them 100% of what they want, we'll never pass another budget or law.

The government will go broke, eventually. And chaos will result. Maybe that seems like a good outcome to you, though it will certainly wreck both the public and private sector economies because at this point they're inextricably intertwined.

What do *you* expect to happen if both sides refuse any plan that doesn't give them 100% of what they want?

Joel Leggett said...

I am always dubious of the argument that conservatives are the ones that need to compromise. No one ever says the left needs to compromise, it is always the right. This, in light of the left's continuing march through all our institutions, academic, political, and cultural. It is the right that needs to compromise even though the size and scope of government, as well as our national debt, has both ballooned and skyrocketed. Anyone who says that at this point it is conservatives that need to compromise is laughably ignorant of our country's history for the last 100 years and should not be taken seriously.

Cass said...

No one ever says the left needs to compromise, it is always the right.

If that were true (it's not), I might agree with the rest of your comment.

I would ask that you go back and read my post and tell me where I have said that only conservatives need to compromise?

I'm perfectly willing to discuss criticisms of what I actually wrote, but see no point in defending straw man statements.

Joel Leggett said...

The whole point of your post was a condemnation of "radicalism on the right," as Grim himself observed. According to you "Now it is conservatives who whisper of rebellion and armed resistance; of lack of consent." You accuse the right of seeking to deligitamize the government. You then end your post asking when compromise became such a bad word.

What was the point of your post if not to condemn radicalism on the right and counsel conservatives to compromise? How was what I said in response a straw man argument? It wasn't. It isn't conservatives that need to compromise it is the left.

All conservatives do lately is compromise. Our representatives confirm his Supreme Court nominees and work with leftist politicians on big government policies like "No Child Left Behind," The Prescription Drug program, and the initial stimulus. Our "conservative" Chief Justice just cast the deciding vote finding Obamacare constitutional. In fact, the right via our Republican politicians and jurists have compromised so much it is sickening.

You are fooling yourself if you think conservatives are the ones that need to embrace compromise.

Cass said...

The whole point of your post was a condemnation of "radicalism on the right," as Grim himself observed.

No, it was not. If we are to allow Grim to define what I meant during a post in which I took great pains to observe that BOTH sides have done the same things when out of power, then perhaps we ought to eliminate the middleman entirely and just let Grim inform me of what I intended to say :p

According to you "Now it is conservatives who whisper of rebellion and armed resistance; of lack of consent." You accuse the right of seeking to deligitamize the government. You then end your post asking when compromise became such a bad word.

If you choose to omit the sentence that preceded this (the part you cherry picked and presented out of context), it might well look that way.... as many things do, taken out of the fuller context.

On the other hand, if you look at the preceding 4 paragraphs of the post that emphasized the many times progressives acted immoderately, or perhaps just looked at the sentence that came before, it's harder to pretend I was only talking about one side:

During the Bush years there was much talk of moving to France and the threshold, past which a free people were justified in rebelling against or resisting government. Now it is conservatives who whisper of rebellion and armed resistance; of lack of consent.

Translation: they did it then. Now we're doing it.

Nowhere in my post do I say (or even suggest) one sided compromise. The plain meaning of the word "compromise" is a bilateral bargain in which each side trades part of what they want for something the other side wants.

Compromise is NOT capitulation. There's a word for that. There's a palpable irony in folks who want to adhere to the plain meaning of the constitution, yet want to redefine words still in usage.

If we can't even agree what every day words like compromise mean, despite having dictionaries everywhere, we're in real trouble.

Compromise: An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

Capitulation: The action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand.

They're different words. I thought people knew what they meant. Apparently, interpreting even modern english is harder than it seems.

Joel Leggett said...

You are right, apparently some people do have trouble understanding certain words. As you say "Compromise: An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions."

My point, as I clearly stated above, is that so far the only side making concessions has been the conservatives. Consequently, it is a foolish waste of time to tell both conservatives and liberals that they both need to compromise. At this point the only side that needs to be told to compromise is the left.

If we continue to compromise, as you advise us to do, and the left continues to refuse then we will have capitulated. Give your advise to those that need it.