Contact Us    
The Art of Compromise

You have to know what you want and what you believe.

by James Leroy Wilson
May 12, 2005

Bookmark and Share
The Art of Compromise

Those of us with a social vision and a desire for better political arrangements, have to work out the means to get from where we are, to where we want to be. This is not easy, as compromise can go one direction or another, your way or the other way.

This is the dilemma for officeholder facing re-election. There are no perfect bills, and one old saying is that making laws is like making sausage; you don't want to know what goes into it. (Of course, the difference here is that good sausage is both theoretically possible and a practical reality.) But the officeholder can at least work for things he believes in. He can compromise, which is necessary, or he can sell out. Compromising means getting some of what you want; selling out means violating one's stated principles for the sake of keeping the office.

Two examples about are seen in the Republican Party in the past few decades. Ronald Reagan developed the reputation, both as governor of California and as President of the United States, for setting priorities, fighting for what he wanted, accepting what he could get, and coming back the next day to fight again. At one of the lower points in American history and facing a Democratic House of Representatives, he led the way for massive tax cuts and tremendous increases in defense spending. He did compromise on social spending which led to high budget deficits. But then, that was not a high priority; he sacrificed fiscal policy to move his security and economic agenda forward. He gave in on what he thought were the least important points.

Since Reagan's Presidency, and especially since George W. Bush has been President, Republicans have done little despite their dominance. It is always a "wait until after the next election" for the conservative revolution to commence. Except Bush's "conservatism" doesn't resemble Reagan's or Goldwater's conservatism at all. After fighting for balanced budgets and eliminating programs during the Clinton Administration, Congressional Republicans with the President's blessing have spent, spent, and spent some more. In addition, under the guise of fighting a "War on Terror" the national Police State and Warfare State have grown tremendously. Perhaps not since the Civil War have a people lost so much freedom in so little time.

In a time of war, those who call themselves "conservative" are inclined not to compromise, but to sell out. Support the President, support the Party, get re-elected by helping the President get re-elected. Even if in just ten short years that means going from wanting to see the federal Department of Education abolished, to voting for increased federal control over our schools. Even if it means voting for measures, such as an internal passport (or "REAL ID") that would have rightly been condemned if a Democratic President wanted it. The Republican Party has devoured conservatism, not advanced it.

Even if we disagree with what Reagan fought for, and even if his reputation for principled compromise, of accepting half the loaf, is overrated, this should be the role model.

The foundations of my political philosophy is a love for peace, privacy, and economic liberty. But from there, choices have to be made. Peace is the end; what are the means?

There could be "peace through strength" - deterrence. Or there could be peace through demobilization. Peace through collective security, or peace through neutrality. Peace through international cooperation via the United Nations, or peace through withdrawing from the United Nations. Peace through making liberal democracies everywhere, or peace through non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries.

Protecting and advancing privacy and the private life also carries problems. I yearn for a society in which it wasn't anybody's business what you ate and drank, what drugs you took, who you took as friends and lovers, what books you read, and how many guns you owned. It would be clear from this that I would not support laws against, say, sodomy. But does that mean I should endorse the federal Supreme Court's repeal of state sodomy laws, an act that had no support from the Constitution? I would oppose a National ID, but should there be any means of identifying illegal immigrants and potential terrorists? I would support equal treatment and protection under the law, but is there no room there for profiling? Is there any individual right that is absolute and inviolable?

And then there is economic liberty. A person has the right to make as much money (honestly, of course) as he can. But is ownership in land an absolute right? Would competition from countries that use political prisoners as factory workers be "free trade?" Does free trade require open borders? Are there "public goods" or "natural monopolies" that only the State can provide? Are the lower tariffs from international free trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO worth the price of added regulations and loss of sovereignty?

Some of these questions are more easily answered than others. But it is also easy to see where compromise can be reached. I would prefer very steep cuts in defense spending, but would accept less-steep cuts if we abandon our policy of intervention and nation-building. After all, "peace through strength" is possible; "peace through war" is not. And I would accept the existence of some antiquated blue laws in some of our states and localities, if it also meant less federal law enforcement . After all, the federal government can not be protecting our individual rights if it is watching our every move. And I would even accept, as inevitable, taxes and wasteful government spending, if regulations and other barriers to trade were lightened. After all, a nation can not prosper through punishing its people for making money.

In politics, it is impossible to get everything you want. But if you know what you want, if you know what you believe, you will know when to bend and when to stand firm.

Comments (2)

Post a Comment

notapplicable from United States of Hysteria writes:
May 16, 2005
Those of us with a social vision and a desire for better political arrangements, have to work out the means to get from where we are, to where we want to be.

Whassup with this? I thought I was reading Independent Country, but this sounds like Socialist Daily.

We aren't anywhere, nor do we need to be. While some of we may prefer 'better political arrangements' (whatever those may be), I prefer that the political beast be left lying in whatever state it has currently collapsed in. Neither provoking, nor patronizing the beast by any herd of social improvers will benefit me in the least. Rather the beast will use the opportunity as a mandate to 'do something.' Of course the unwritten ending to that phrase is 'to somebody.'

To which I say, no thank you, Mr. Wilson. Please keep your we to yourself, and don't allow them to tread on me.

Only I have the capacity to make the judgements necessary to best benefit me. What you're describing is just another deal with the devil. Something I did not expect from this column.

James Leroy Wilson writes:
May 16, 2005
In the sense used in the article, I would consider anarchy a political arrangment just as agitating for freedom is a political act. Anarchy can be called the ideal, but it is more realistic to roll back the state little by little, not destroy it in one swoop. Compromising in the direction of less government is not, I believe, inconsistent with anything I've written.

Send Us Your Opinion
(Comments are moderated.)
Your Name:*

Your E-Mail Address:*
(Confidential. Will not be published.)


Note: In order to control automated spam submissions, URLs are no longer permitted in this form.

Please type the letters you see above.


Bookmark and Share

Ron Paul Is a Nut (and So Am I)
Published September 10, 2008

Forget about red states and blue states. Wilson's unique take on political topics is refreshingly not politics as usual.

» Buy Now
» More Information
RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson
Sign up to receive an e-mail notice when new articles by this author are published. Your address remains confidential, and you may cancel at any time. A confirmation email will be sent.

Your e-mail address:
po Books
Now Available!

Teachings of a Three Year Old... Turned Tyke,
by Hal Evan Caplan.

A father learns from the wisdom of his toddler.

More Information.

More by James Leroy Wilson
47 for 46 for 45
My favorite movies since when I was born
by James Leroy Wilson, 3/15/16
Hired Gun Quarterbacks
They rarely win the Super Bowl.
by James Leroy Wilson, 2/9/16
Fixing Football's Overtime
Get rid of the coin toss!
by James Leroy Wilson, 1/19/16
Solving the NBA's Conference Imbalance
Get rid of them!
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/26/15
The Problem of School
We develop differently, but arbitrary age rules punish us.
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/19/15
Deflating and defaming Tom Brady
Punishing without evidence
by James Leroy Wilson, 5/12/15
Should Floyd Mayweather be allowed to fight?
The Nevada Athletic Commission is wrong, but not for the reason you think.
by James Leroy Wilson, 4/28/15
» Complete List (565)

RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson: RSS Feed for James Leroy Wilson

Recently Published
View Article A Final Word
It’s been a good ride
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/20/21
The Last Post
The Partial Observer is no more
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/15/21
The Challenges and Chances of Change
Announcing a coming change
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/8/21
On Each Continent We Worship
A new hymn for World Communion Sunday
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 10/1/21
Tending the Family Tree
A grandparent's charge
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 9/24/21
The Cross is Our Ground Zero
Why the cross is the crux of our faith
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 9/17/21
A Score Recalled
Remembering September 11th twenty years later
by Greg Asimakoupoulos, 9/10/21

Get the Partial Observer's
'recently published' headlines via RSS.

RSS Feed for Recently Published PO Articles    What is RSS?
Reproduction of original material from The Partial Observer without written permission is strictly prohibited.
The opinions expressed by site contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
Copyright ©2000-2021 partialobserver.com. All rights reserved.
Home · Site Map · Top