Is Compromise a Dirty Word?

Compromise is “a rather complex issue that deserves serious thought.” So I wrote in an August 5 comment following that day’s blog posting in which I cited Max Weber’s oft-quoted statement, “politics is the art of compromise.”

In March of this year, speaking to a small group of college students, President Obama candidly and openly emphasized the importance of compromise. Part of that conversation is included in an article by David Plouffe, a Senior Advisor to the President (available for viewing/reading here.)

Plouffe’s brief article closes with these words: “Compromise isn’t a dirty word—in fact, it’s the only way our democracy can get big things done.”

The President made similar statements about compromise several times in July. And earlier this week, speaking in Iowa, President Obama reiterated, “Congress has to get the message that compromise isn’t a dirty word.”

But last Sunday, on a CNN interview, Rep. Michele Bachmann declared, “On big issues, I don’t compromise my core sets of principles.”

In some ways that is a commendable attitude. I think people ought to stand up for their principles—but only when they are they are the only ones affected by that resolute stance. It is different for politicians or others acting in the public arena.

One of Rep. Bachmann’s core principles seems to be not raising taxes on anybody and not raising the debt ceiling, which was necessary in order for the U.S. to make its payments on money already borrowed. So she voted No on the compromise debt ceiling bill.

But there were a number of liberals who also voted No on the same compromise bill. They, for good reason, did not want to pass the bill that provided no additional revenue.

For Rep. Bachmann and those on the political far right, compromise is evidently thought to be a dirty word. The same is true for those on the political far left.

“Emphasis on Not Compromising” is one subsection of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism (pp. 68-72). Unwillingness to compromise is one of the most common characteristics of fundamentalists. That is true for “fundamentalist liberals” also.

Often the choice is not between good and bad. Sometimes the choice is between the good (not the best) and something worse. Or often it is a choice between options, neither of which is “good.” But if our only choice, as sometimes is the case, is between two “evils,” is not choosing the lesser of two evils good?

If we are making choices only for ourselves and the course of action we will take, a course that does not directly affect others, we can be idealistic and stay true to our principles and refuse to compromise. Such action is, I believe, virtuous.

But when we are in a group setting, and especially if we are in a position of leadership or responsibility, the matter is different. We have to consider the good of the whole group, not just our personal commitments.

In a group setting, it is a bit arrogant to say, by word or by deed (vote), My way or no way.

The “purists” are loath to compromise, but in the public arena they sometimes cause the good to fail because it wasn’t what they considered to be the best.

Individually, we should always beware of the good becoming an enemy of the best. But sometimes, especially in the public arena, stubbornly seeking the best can become an enemy of the good.

Hitting the Ceiling

Tuesday August 2 is, as has been widely publicized, the deadline by which the U.S. Congress must raise the nation’s debt ceiling limit in order to keep the country from defaulting on its loan obligations.

At this point, it is by no means certain that the Congress will vote soon enough to increase the debt ceiling. And some people, for good reason, are hitting the ceiling about that.

Some are hitting the ceiling because of the highly irresponsible position of the Tea Party congresspersons who have made it clear they will not vote to raise the ceiling no matter what. Rep. Michele Bachmann is one of those, and she has probably ruined any chance of receiving the Republican presidential nomination because of her intransigent position.

Others are hitting the ceiling because of the conditions linked to a promise to vote for raising the debt ceiling. Those conditions are related to the “cap, cut, and balance” bill that was, foolishly, passed by the House last week.

The problem is that the House Republicans’ proposal for cutting is not only of wasteful and unneeded government programs but also a cutting of Social Security benefits and cutting Medicare and Medicaid. On The Ed Show last Thursday, Ed Shultz was hitting the ceiling because he thought the President was “caving in” to proposed cuts in “the big three.”

While “hitting the ceiling” may be too strong an expression, a number of Christians, led by Jim Wallis (editor-in-chief of Sojourners), met with the President last week. They pleaded that cuts not be made which would negatively affect the poor and needy.

Wallis and his friends are a part of a group known as the Circle of Protection, which has been signed by many denominational leaders. Daniel Vestal, Executive Coordinator, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, is one of the signers. (Many readers of this blog know, or know of, Dr. Vestal.)

I have also joined the Circle, which states, in part, “We are . . . committed to resist budget cuts that undermine the lives, dignity, and rights of poor and vulnerable people.”

Some Democrats have even been sending Republican congresspersons appeals from President Reagan. During Reagan’s two terms, he presided over eighteen increases in the debt ceiling. He even publicly scolded Congress for playing hardball politics with the debt limit and bringing the nation “to the edge of default before facing its responsibility.”

It was in 1983 that Reagan “hit the ceiling,” declaring that "The full consequences of a default--or even the serious prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate." 

But now, just eight days before the deadline, some congresspersons, like Rep. Bachmann, are saying they will not vote for raising the debt ceiling no matter what. Many others are seeking to “blackmail” the President by saying they will vote for it only if their conditions are met.

Some are so irresponsible as to even say that defaulting is no big deal and might even help the country! And Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has even suggested that the deadline was set for August 2 just so the matter would be settled in time for the President to celebrate his birthday with an extravagant fund-raising bash on August 3.

Maybe if we are not hitting the ceiling because of the government’s failure to raise the national debt ceiling we ought to be!