Words are Swords, Part Two
[Read Part One]
I was compelled to begin this series of posts as a reaction to my own post of last Thursday, "GOD vs. MACHIAVELLI," in which I laid into Jerry Falwell, the Dubya, and those in this country who have interpreted his reelection as a mandate to tear up the long-running contract between church and state. Upon rereading that piece, I was struck by the dichotomy between its tone—sarcastic, dismissive, accusatory—and my own strong belief in the value of compromise and coalition building. You see, while I consider myself a strong, moderately left-of-center progressive, I am also one of the dwindling few who wishes to find a way to work with those who don’t always agree with me.
I actually find it mildly exhilarating to sit down with someone on the other side of the aisle and try to forge an agreement. To me, it means that we as a society may not really be as divided as the media portrays with its maps of Red and Blue—a more accurate map might color this entire country varying shades of Purple. Yet dogmatists on both sides rule out the noble art of compromise altogether, considering its required give and take a tool for the weak, the wishy-washy, or the unprincipled. Ridiculous. Political principles are starting points for negotiations. They guide us through the process, but they do not ensure results. There is little purpose to a principle that is an end itself rather than a means to an end.
If everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten, why should politics be any different? Is not the mechanism of compromise one of the first tools we pull out the behavioral toolbox to settle our disputes? Likewise, any true democratic system by its very nature compels a give and take. In fact, not so long ago, such deal making was quite commonplace in Washington. The Times’ David Brooks addresses this topic in his 12/4 op-ed, "Lift a Pint for Coalitions":
In the end, it all comes down to bigger problems that can’t be solved by a simple tyrannical majority alone:
I tend to agree. We don’t have a choice—we can delay honestly brokered compromise, but only at the expense of making difficult problems worse and inevitable compromises more painful. It’s kindergarten stuff, really.
I was compelled to begin this series of posts as a reaction to my own post of last Thursday, "GOD vs. MACHIAVELLI," in which I laid into Jerry Falwell, the Dubya, and those in this country who have interpreted his reelection as a mandate to tear up the long-running contract between church and state. Upon rereading that piece, I was struck by the dichotomy between its tone—sarcastic, dismissive, accusatory—and my own strong belief in the value of compromise and coalition building. You see, while I consider myself a strong, moderately left-of-center progressive, I am also one of the dwindling few who wishes to find a way to work with those who don’t always agree with me.
I actually find it mildly exhilarating to sit down with someone on the other side of the aisle and try to forge an agreement. To me, it means that we as a society may not really be as divided as the media portrays with its maps of Red and Blue—a more accurate map might color this entire country varying shades of Purple. Yet dogmatists on both sides rule out the noble art of compromise altogether, considering its required give and take a tool for the weak, the wishy-washy, or the unprincipled. Ridiculous. Political principles are starting points for negotiations. They guide us through the process, but they do not ensure results. There is little purpose to a principle that is an end itself rather than a means to an end.
If everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten, why should politics be any different? Is not the mechanism of compromise one of the first tools we pull out the behavioral toolbox to settle our disputes? Likewise, any true democratic system by its very nature compels a give and take. In fact, not so long ago, such deal making was quite commonplace in Washington. The Times’ David Brooks addresses this topic in his 12/4 op-ed, "Lift a Pint for Coalitions":
The Social Security issue changes the incentives. The rule is compromise or fail. If the president is to avoid a debilitating defeat, the atmosphere has to change.
In the end, it all comes down to bigger problems that can’t be solved by a simple tyrannical majority alone:
Maybe the context for old-fashioned coalition building no longer exists. There aren't as many cross-party friendships as before, nor as many master deal makers. But somehow we're going to have to fix Social Security so the baby boom generation doesn't imprison its children in a fortress of debt. We're going to have to bring the entitlement system into the era of longevity.
I tend to agree. We don’t have a choice—we can delay honestly brokered compromise, but only at the expense of making difficult problems worse and inevitable compromises more painful. It’s kindergarten stuff, really.
posted by Jonathan Wright at 7:02 PM EMAIL POST
