“Do not let us mistake necessary evils for good”
C.S. Lewis
There exists in the realm of political opinion three extremist positions. One says that the right is always right and the left and is always wrong. The second says that it is the left that is the abode of geniuses and angels, and the right is the haunt of devils and fools. The third extremist position hides behind a mantle of moderation, pretending rationality in triangulation. It is the extreme position of the middle. These see truth as a balancing between right and left, kind of a yin and yang of political thinking where both other extremes are seen as wrong because they are out of balance. They are the self proclaimed “adults in the room”, who suppose that the answer is always in moderation, and error lurks everywhere else.
There are, I suppose, times where moderation is indeed the best course, eating is one example that comes to mind. But to assume that the middle is always the right road to be on is perhaps the least rational, and certainly the least principled of the three extremist positions. Say I ask you for the product of 5 and 3, and you, the result of a public school education, think that means to add them, and give your answer as 8. Your senile grandfather insists the answer is 15. I, being a moderate extremist, would assume you both wrong because you are arguing, and decide the mature answer is eleven and a half. The same logic would have said Hitler should have only killed three million Jews, that blacks should have been allowed to ride in the middle seats of the bus, and that we should be able to abort babies only in the first trimester.
Compromise is almost never the best answer, but it is sometimes the only answer. It’s a little like amputating your leg. Life with two legs really is the preferred way to go, but sometimes that just isn’t an option; and the compromise, life with one leg, is a better plan than death with both of them. Just the same, you kind of want your doctor to see that as the last resort, not the standard operating procedure! When compromise comes too easily, negotiation tactics quickly adjust. As liberal economist John Maynard Keynes suggested, “When the final result is expected to be a compromise, it is often prudent to start from an extreme position”. While being “uncompromising” is the preferred label for someone unwilling to make a deal, “stupid patsy” is the appropriate term for someone too inclined to strike a bargain. If your intent is to always meet in the middle, what’s to stop someone from moving the endpoint? And that is pretty much what has happened in our culture and our politics. Today’s compromise was yesterday’s extreme.
Most effective compromise does not involve “meeting in the middle” anyway; the middle is seldom a place where anyone wants to meet. You want to go to the Florida Keys for vacation, your wife opts for Southern California… meet in the middle and have fun in Kansas? The give and take that is more effective in marriage as well as politics is when each side gets their way sometimes. It’s easier when you’re pretty much on the same page anyway, and the differences are minor ones that don’t involve a betrayal of core principles. I don’t mind letting someone else lead as long as I’m not dancing with the devil.
The so called “civil war” in the GOP will require compromise if the party is to move forward. Until now, the Republican establishment has only acquiesced to compromise when conquered. The establishment is embarrassed by its own tea party and libertarian constituents, desirous of their votes but not their viewpoints, and certainly not their candidates. Like a controlling husband, compromise means “do what I tell you and there won’t be a problem.” You might get away with that if victory follows victory, but when the only serious success you’ve had recently is the Tea Party wave of 2010, expect the GOP establishment to get some pushback. Unfortunately, dinosaurs seldom see the coming apocalypse or they would try to adapt. Instead of trying to figure out how these new Republicans can fit into the old GOP (is that redundant?), the establishment needs to see if it can figure out how it can keep a place in the new Republican Party. When a candidate like Rand Paul can in a matter of weeks both win the straw poll at CPAC, and get a standing ovation at Berkely, one needs to question whether victory for the Republicans lies in another direction than the boring establishment candidates like McCain and Romney. If it weren’t that the money people prefer the old ways, there would be little controversy; it’s the money alone that enables establishment candidates to be viable. 2012 showed that the establishment can’t do it on their own. It’s questionable whether non-establishment candidates can win elections without establishment support and financing. Tea Party, conservatives, and libertarians have shown themselves willing to sit out elections in significant numbers rather than compromise their principles for a RINO. It’s time for the establishment to do what they do so well: compromise, fold. If not, it will be a war indeed, one for the heart and soul of the GOP, and it will likely mean losing the Presidential election again in 2016; it’s a war the dinosaurs can’t win.
IMHO: Compromise is an act of practicality, it is not an art but a necessity; the art is in the negotiation. There is no virtue in always seeking compromise, especially on issues of great importance. Neither is it a virtue to be uncompromising on any issue; if you can never alter your stance you will soon stand alone, and your wisdom will be shrouded by your obstinance. Compromise is simply the willingness to accept something less than what you believe to be perfect, because the alternative would be worse. We seldom find perfection anyway, and the pursuit of perfection is seldom the reason for failing to compromise; more often it’s arrogance, hurt feelings, and animosity. We love compromise as long as it’s someone else doing the compromising. It’s called for more than it’s warranted, but achieved less. It keeps us from open warfare, but seldom brings us to the best solution; for that you need consensus… and you thought compromise was hard!
