Julian Laws
There are a few phrases employed in the rhetoric of political gamesmanship that should be brought under scrutiny. They are usually uttered by members of the media or thrown out during debates. Some politicians feel they have to use them in order to get elected. To me they are an annoyance and I am not interested in any politician that would buy into what they suggest.
The phrases are: reach across the aisle, bipartisan, work with Democrats/Republicans to come to an agreement, and compromise. “But these are good things,” you say. Well, let’s see.
Let’s pretend that in my state’s Senate election I voted for the candidate who was the best person for the job (pretending, because the best person for the job probably wasn’t an option.). He wins. He has sound economic understanding, a solid constitutional foundation, I agreed with the changes he wants to make and the ideas he wants to work for. He goes to Washington and presents a bill that he promised to present. This promise is one of the factors that caused me to vote for him. He did the research, understands what it means for American freedom, based his policy on facts and proven economic principles.
In every way I feel that this bill is right, that it will benefit every American citizen and that it is exactly what our country needs. Yet some on the other side of the aisle aren’t sold on it. They want to compromise and come to an understanding. Why would I want my representative to compromise?
To compromise means to take good legislation and water it down. It dilutes the impact of the measure. It takes good policy and makes it bad. It makes right wrong. Simply, it makes 2+2 equal 3.5. As simple as this little equation is as an example… it works.
There are politicians and pundits who have policy that is wrong on every level. It is wrong in the face of historical evidence, it is wrong in its numbers and result. It is wrong in its assertion that human beings won’t change their behaviors. It is told to the American people with straight faces and laced with lies, misdirection and false assertions that would take months to refute. It is wrong in its motivation, execution and consequences. It is 2+2 =3. These are the people who want to compromise. Some of them are called economists. All of them are called experts.
The game
Compromising with people who want bad policy is to concede to them two things that they need to survive. The first: They need the game played under their terms, by their rules. They need favors, back scratches, friends in the right places and leverage for future deals. They need a reason to say that they participated and benefited their constituents. They need to show that they can work with others and play nice.
They also need scapegoats and fall guys, people to blame when things don’t work. They want compromise because they know that any concession to their opinion is a victory that moves their agenda forward. They know that as soon as 2+2 doesn’t equal 4 the truth has been lost, that the right answer doesn’t get exposed.
Getting someone to compromise suggests that you have a valid point and that you too did the research, when what it really means is you want your way. Conceding to them grants them power over you and your ideas. It means you can be played and that you are not as sure of yourself as you should be. It validates their ideas and invalidates yours. They need that validation.
Ignorance
The second thing they need is ignorance. Compromise removes the need for politicians, media and voters to find the truth. When they come to an agreement it must mean that it is better, that mutual benefit was obtained. It suggests that they, of their own accord, found the right way.
We have been taught since the moment we could listen that it was good to compromise, that it was good to come up with an agreement that worked for both parties through a little give and take. Except that nobody gets what they want. They both gave up part of what they wanted to avoid a conflict or to simply create a result. It is possible that they feel ripped off and unfulfilled. It’s possible that they are not happy.
Compromise is not the best option; finding the truth is. What is really the issue and what is really the solution? Compromise gives us a false sense of security that we did the right thing and helped another person to obtain their goals. It allows us to avoid the hard questions and to ignore the lie. We aren’t forced to take a long look at ourselves and ask, “What do I really believe, what do I really stand for, what is really the truth?”
Too much of what happens in our society is the result of people not finding out what the truth really is. Why do I like this policy? Will it work? What evidence do I have that supports its success or suggests its failure?
These questions never get answered. “It sounds good” is not an answer. Yet we let that be sufficient when spoken by a nice face, a kind personality, a person we perceive as smarter than us. Have you considered that, possibly, that person is not smarter than you? Have you considered that, possibly, that person has other motives? Maybe that person really believes that 2+2=3. Maybe that person knows that 2+2 doesn’t equal 3, but 3 gets him what he wants. They count on the fact that you wasted valuable time in high school or college taking health classes, diversity training, ethnic studies classes and political science classes where 3 or 3.5 was always the answer. They vilify and belittle the people who took math, science labs, critical thinking, business courses and economics classes.
When we compromise, policy and ideas aren’t allowed to stand on their own merit. A person with a bad idea doesn’t have to own up to that fact. He doesn’t stand alone with the evidence of his error staring him in the face. His ideas ever get exposed for what they are; nor does he.
A person who compromises has someone else to blame, a way out. He can say it wasn’t his idea or that he is not completely at fault. If the policy works on some level he can take credit for his participation and use it as fodder for his re-election, even if he had nothing to do with the parts that worked. “I supported this measure,” he says. “I voted for it, and it worked.”
Three definitions, one meaning
Looking up the word compromise in the dictionary reveals some telling definitions:
- A settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
- An endangering, especially of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one’s integrity.
- To expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal etc,; jeopardize: a military oversight that compromised the nations defenses.
I would contest that the fulfillment of the first definition leads to the reality of the second and third, especially when there is an “adjustment” of principles, etc. The “etc.” could include values, evidences, and morals. It could include the truth. If I’ve done my due diligence to answer questions and find the truth, only to dismiss part of them when someone disagrees, haven’t I compromised my integrity in order to gain a settlement? This can only be the result of doubt or fear.
I’m not talking about ignoring the other side. If they have something to say that does work, that is a good idea, or if there is something you didn’t think of, those things need to be considered. That is part of finding the truth. But when that truth is found, why bend or change when someone disagrees? Sometimes an idea is just wrong. Sometimes people want 2+2=3.
Take a stand
I would rather see politicians stand on their own two feet and say “this is my policy, and I’m going to stand by it. If it works, then I did it! If it fails, then I was wrong.” I want politicians that demand the same of their opponents. “I’m going to allow his policy to stand on its own; if it fails, it won’t have my endorsement. If it works… congratulations to him, he was right.”
The gridlock currently occurring in Washington may be a good sign. Maybe politicians are finally saying they aren’t willing to give in. Maybe someone is finally standing up for principles, values and the truth.
This gives us as voters the chance to do our own research and find the truth for ourselves. We, whether we want to or not, are going to have to draw the same line and then hold to our principles and beliefs and let the merit of our policies stand alone. Hopefully gridlock will force us to take a deeper look at what is happening in this country and ask the questions that need to be asked. What really works? What is the proper role of government? Do my representatives really know what they are doing?
This puts a lot of pressure on voters. Public officials who stand up for the truth in the face of opposition aren’t likely to get elected or reelected. They aren’t granted a chance to prove their point or enough time to allow their ideas to play out or prove themselves. Good policy needs a chance for the long-term consequences to be seen. Only an understanding of truth will allow this to happen. Only an honest and objective look at what we really believe will allow for us vote for and elect people who are willing to stand for truth without compromise, without adjustment of principles.
As voters we need to educate ourselves, find the truth, and then stand by it ourselves. We need to stand firm on a foundation based on solid principles and morals that we have proven through application and their own merit. The next time you hear someone say, “I’m just trying to get you to question things,” look him in the eye and ask him if he has answers. Asking questions is good; finding answers is better; applying truth is best. Once you find the truth, don’t compromise.
Julian Laws is a native New Mexican. He earned bachelor’s degrees in public relations and Spanish from Southern Utah University. He also graduated from Boston University with a master’s degree in international relations. He currently lives in Las Cruces.