The Art of the Compromise

The Book

I haven’t read “The Art of the Deal,” but I suspect that part of it has to do with the give and take that is necessary in order to achieve a deal. My understanding of the word “deal” implies that I get some things I want, and you get some things you want. I don’t get everything I want, and you don’t get everything you want. But presumably each gets enough to be satisified. In other words, a compromise.

Compromise is a lost art nowadays in our political discourse. There is no middle ground, only absolutes. There are no deals. Either I get everything and you get nothing, or vice-versa. Take the issue of gun control for example (brought to mind by the shooting yesterday at the Republican congressional baseball practice). Certainly there are some on the left who would want to ban all weapons more powerful than a cap gun and there are some on the right who see nothing wrong with tactical nuclear weapons in the hands of the mentally ill. But I suspect most people are somewhere in the middle. They don’t want to ban guns outright, but wouldn’t mind at least a smidge of regulation in their sales. However there is never any compromise on this issue in Congress. The NRA raises the “slippery slope” argument, namely that any regulation at all only leads to more and more regulation, until guns are outlawed completely, and only outlaws have guns. The slippery slope argument can be applied to any position one takes and immediately shuts down any attempts to compromise.

Why is compromise a dirty word today?  The word “compromise” as a verb as oppose the the noun has always had negative conotations. A person who has been compromised is open to criticism or even blackmail. Compromise, like the word “sanction”, is a bit of a contronym, that is, a word with meanings that are at odds with each other. How much of the conflation of the good and bad meanings of compromise is the result of politics and how much the result of imprecision of language is difficult to gauge. Whatever the reason, compromise is a bad word in Washington, and possibly in the minds of many people. The constant demonization of the other side, fueled by talk radio and biased news sources, makes any attempt at compromise a “deal with the devil.” Moreover, many people approach debatable topics from an immutable position and with religious fervor, which is understandable because their position is based on religion. Religion and compromise are not words that belong in the same sentence. Religious positions, such as views on abortion and contraception, are simply not open to debate. Thus attempts to limit abortion indirectly by increasing availability of contraceptives and sex education, though logical, fall on deaf ears to the religiously indoctrinated. The increased influence of the religious right in the Republican party has certainly contributed to squelching the spirit of compromise that once existed in Congress.

The left is guilty as well. They demonize any who criticize the tenants of Islam (tenants that are anti-gay, anti-woman’s rights, that include death for apostasy and blasphemy, and so on) as “Islamophobes” and racists. While there is, no doubt, some vicious anti-Muslim sentiment on the right, the attitude that any criticism whatsoever of a religion is forbidden only serves to shut down debate and increasingly polarizes people. It is impossible to advance the debate under these circumstances, and thus we are all paralyzed into inaction while terror attack after terror attack occurs. The mandatory “thoughts and prayers” don’t seem to be cutting it in preventing these attacks.  We need a rational debate on the ideologies that lead to terror attacks, but this isn’t happening.

Returning to the baseball shooting, it was depressing to read the social media posts on Twitter afterwards. References to Kathy Griffin’s decapitated Trump stunt and the Julius Caesar play with Trump as Caesar as instigating factors were common. I do think it is likely that such anti-Trump, anti-Republican imagery and similar violent talk on the left played into the attacker’s rationale for taking matters into his own hand. After all, the attacker was an angry man who supported Bernie Sanders. On other hand there has been no dearth of similar violent talk from the right, and if anything, attacks inspired by the right, such as the knife attack in Oregon on three men defending two Muslim teens, seem to be more common. The point that both sides must now realize is that extreme, violent rhetoric can inspire a nut from either end of the political spectrum, with tragic results.

Let’s face it. In a more and more polarized country, no one is going to get his way, at least for long. Sure one party can come into power and effect its agenda. But then the pendulum will swing, as the other other side gets angry and comes out to vote. Then the other side will come into power and undo everything. This is an incredible waste of resources and a failure of leadership. The only sane course is that of compromise, taking a middle course, and realizing that neither side has all the answers. Of course that only works if the people themselves can move towards the center, away from their protective bubbles on the right and left. I’m not sure this can happen, due to the constant propaganda from non-objective media outlets and the coarsening of discourse via social media.

In an alternative universe there may be a Donald J. Trump who authored “The Art of the Deal” and came to Washington to actually make deals across party lines. Someone who forced Republicans and Democrats to find common ground and to work out legislation that would appeal to both sides. Each side would get some things they liked and some things they didn’t like. Each side could think that perhaps next election the balance of power would shift and they could get a few more things they liked into law. No side would ever be completely happy, but neither they would be completely unhappy either. But each would be respectful of the other side, would use courteous language, and would not accuse each other of being unpatriotic or un-American.

What am I thinking? I sound like a typical libtard snowflake.

About mannd

I am a retired cardiac electrophysiologist who has worked both in private practice in Louisville, Kentucky and as a Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver. I am interested not only in medicine, but also in computer programming, music, science fiction, fantasy, 30s pulp literature, and a whole lot more.

2 thoughts on “The Art of the Compromise

  1. A good post, thanks; I recall also a good post from you that I looked for in vain several months ago; I recall your reaction to a terrorist attack in France and how you thought a massive military coalition needed to be mustered to fight the Caliphate advance. Would you kindly direct me with a link to that post??

Leave a Reply