Is compromise a virtue?

There’s a lot to digest in the latest Pew Research Center survey. And, although I’m tempted to take on the belief held by nearly 40 percent of Americans – yet disputed by, among many others, former fed chairman Alan Greenspan –  that ending tax cuts for the wealthy would hurt the economy, I’ll focus this post on how the respondents answered the question of whether compromise is a virtue.  Here’s the full question:

“Now thinking about political leaders… All things considered, which do you admire most? Political leaders who make compromises with people they disagree with (or) political leaders who stick to their positions without compromising.”

The results surprised and disheartened me:

• 42 percent prefer political leaders who compromise.
• 49 percent prefer political leaders who “stick to their positions without compromising.”
• 10 percent don’t know or refused to answer.

Like so many things, it seems that most Democrats and Republicans disagree on the role of compromise in governance as well, with independents leaning more toward political leaders who stick to their positions. Here’s how the Pew Research Center summarized it:

“Republicans, in particular, admire politicians who stick to their positions (62%) over those who compromise (33%). Although independents are more divided on the question, a majority (53%) says they favor leaders who do not compromise; four-in-ten independents (40%) say they most admire leaders who compromise. The balance of opinion is reversed among Democrats; 54% of Democrats say they prefer politicians who compromise with those they disagree with, while 39% say they prefer politicians who stick to their positions without compromising.”

As you can see, this survey finds that Democrats are the only group where a majority of its members value compromise in political leaders, and by extension the political process. Most independents and even more Republicans prefer that their politicians not compromise.

Should we value compromise?

To me it seems obvious that compromise is an important hallmark of a successful democratic system. Still, these findings have challenged me to interrogate that assumption. Political scientists, Prothro and Griggs, in a 1960 article entitled “Fundamental Principles of Democracy,” laid out a set of values which they argued were both supported by “common sense observation and opinion poll results.” Here are the baseline principles that they argued were necessary for a successful democracy:

“In addition to (a common desire to operate a democratic system), most theorists speak of consensus on the general values of liberty, equality, individualism, compromise, and acceptance of procedures necessary to majority rule and minority rights.”

Furthermore, here’s what Eisenhower had to say about compromise:

“Things are not all black and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.”

Clearly, I’m not alone in valuing compromise – but I am in the minority, according to the Pew Research survey. The majority of the American people, on the other hand, are suspicious of compromise. To that end, consider the words of Charles Sumner, the Massachusetts senator whose abhorrence for compromise helped end slavery:

“From the beginning of our history the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned.”

Furthermore, poet and orator James Russell Lowell said that, “compromise makes a good umbrella but a poor roof.” The American people can’t agree on the value of compromise.

Depends what you mean by compromise

After reading the Pew Research survey on compromise, I insisted on polling my friends as well. Most of the conversations went something like this:

Me: “Weren’t you raised to value compromise? Don’t all of our relationships – friendships, business relations – revolve around our ability to give and take?”

Friend: “Um.. It depends what you mean by compromise…”

They were right, of course. We hadn’t defined our terms. After looking at a broad swathe of definitions – ranging from the Oxford English Dictionary to Webster’s – I settled on Wiktionary’s two primary definitions of compromise as most emblematic of the conflict about compromise. Here’s Wiktionary’s definition of compromise:

compromise

1. The settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.
2. A committal to something derogatory or objectionable; a prejudicial concession; a surrender; as, a compromise of character or right.

Within this bifurcated definition, the disagreement is apparent. The first definition of compromise more closely follows my sense of the word: a process by which people can settle their differences and make progress. This definition assumes both the goodwill of the participants and that neither must necessarily give up too much. Moreover, this definition acknowledges the practical reality that multiple parties can have legitimate and competing claims.

This definition of compromise allows people to settle their differences and get on with their lives. The second definition, on the other hand, takes a bleaker view of compromise. In this version, compromise requires a “surrender” of character or principles. Furthermore, one or both parties possess an understanding of some objective, big-T truth which would, when compromised, sully or undermine their essential convictions, and thereby their good character.

Which definition of compromise were Americans talking about in this survey? Probably both kinds. This is the problem with surveys like this. The competing definitions of this word make the findings only modestly useful for our public policy makers.

Considering the results and the competing definitions of compromise, here’s what I hope the findings mean: Americans don’t want politicians to compromise when it comes to our essential principles, which I see as protection and advancement of freedom and liberty, promotion of the general welfare, establishment of justice, increased domestic tranquility, and providing for the common defense of Americans.

But the world is a complicated place and the right path is not always clear-cut. We are a pragmatic people. We understand that the gridlock that has overtaken our country is bad for the future. We know that the polarization started by talk  radio and Fox News and perpetuated by MSNBC and others hinders our ability to solve our problems. In cases where well-meaning people disagree, and our essential principles are not endangered, we value compromise.

Along those lines, here’s what JFK said about compromise in Profiles in Courage:

“We shall need compromises in the days ahead, to be sure. But these will be, or should be, compromises of issues, not of principles. We can compromise our political positions, but not ourselves. . . . Compromise does not mean cowardice. Indeed it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views of their constituents.”

If we are committed to progress and to solving our problems, we will need to show courage in the face of extremists. And the extremists are legion – there are literally millions from both sides of the political spectrum.

It’s not my belief that shouting louder or getting redder in the face will help us now. Rather, we need to come together as well-meaning adults and see where we agree and disagree and what can be done to improve things for the most people. Through this process – compromise that doesn’t compromise our essential principles – we can protect what we value most, even though we may not get everything we want.

Nick Voges is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s Zeitgeist. E-mail him at nick@nmpolitics.net.