"[A compromise] is morally defensible insofar as the time is not ripe to realize the measure your own side prefers, your opponents’ position contains something worthy, the agreement would not set back progress already made, and it would facilitate future cooperation.” - John Stuart Mill
An interesting book review from Paul Starr gives us some insight into a theory I have had for a while concerning the American political landscape. It suggests, rather forcefully, that certain political interests have applied the same level of fervor and certainty to their policy positions as to their religion.
From the article:
"Margalit captures this problem nicely by comparing two images of the political world that he calls the “religious” and the “economic.” Although people who hold the religious view may readily compromise on profane issues, they tend to believe they “cannot compromise over the holy without compromising the holy.” In contrast, the economic picture of the world, based on the ideas of substitution and exchange, leaves lots of room for compromise. From the religious standpoint, “politics is a domain of human activity meant to protect a way of life and give meaning to human life,” whereas the economic picture of politics is concerned only with “satisfying desires and interests.” The more the religious view prevails in politics, the worse the prospects are for compromise. If the religious do agree to compromise in holy matters, it is only to secure a “truce,” not a genuine peace: “The politics of the holy is the art of the impossible.”"
This has seemed to be reality in our political world increasingly over the last thirty years. Generally liberals have moderated their positions since the "fix-the-world through government" days of Lyndon Johnson. Generally, Democrats today hold positions that resemble an Eisenhower Post-War Republican more than a flaming "Great Society" liberal. There are hold-outs, however.
But on the conservative side we have seen the opposite. We have seen Republicans apply the same level of zeal, passion, and black-and-white rigidity to their political positions as their religious beliefs.
Being an evangelical Christian, I find this approach to be morally reprehensible, for very specific reasons, and thanks to someone much smarter than myself - that is, John Stuart Mill - I can put into words why I believe this.
1) A compromise is reasonable if the "time is not ripe" for our full position to be codified in law. A great example of this is the abortion debate. It is not possible without Democrats to ban abortion in the United States. What there is large consensus on, however, are issues like making adoption easier and more affordable, or providing clear and decent alternatives to abortion for the birth mother, or cleaning up our DHS departments across the states to attract foster parents and protect children. Instead Republicans on the national level have generally taken an all-or-nothing position, and they have done virtually nothing on the issues of adoption and fostering - with the exception of the adoption tax credit. But even this credit is set to expire next year for most people. And locally in Oklahoma, our legislature has been inept at cleaning up DHS, protecting foster parents and children in the system. This scares off potential foster and adoptive parents and leaves kids in a frightening system for too long. Too many women feel they are stuck with the decision that it's better to abort than to put a child through this system.
2) A compromise is reasonable if "your opponents' position contains something worthy". Perhaps asking for $1 of increased taxes in return for $10 in government spending cuts is a reasonable offer. It has an element many do not like, but it also achieves a smaller deficit, less government spending, and overall a lower national debt. So is the 1 in 10 tax rule too far? It seems to me this proposal has an element that is acceptable. It is a fair compromise. However, Republicans have engaged in opposition to any tax increase as if it was embedded in Charlton Heston's stone tablets! This is what Margalit means by "religious" approach to compromise.
3) A compromise is reasonable if "the agreement would not set back progress already made". In this instance, we can see how Democrats have been stubbornly religious in their opposition to any reasonable requests to slow abortion. For example, is it inappropriate to require ultrasounds prior to an abortion? What is wrong with requiring a woman to face the reality of her decision? Should we allow people to delude themselves into thinking "it's just not that big a deal"?? Perhaps the ultrasound is not the way to go, but there can and should be measures in place to help women recognize there is a beating heart and a soul that is being ended. At the same time, Republican should not be so rigid in demanding an outright ban on abortion at the expense of good laws that would move the pro-life cause forward, such as what was listed above.
4) A compromise is reasonable if "it would facilitate future cooperation". We can see here how Mill is suggesting a compromise can be an end, in and of itself. Sometimes on non-essential, non-core issues it can be more productive to compromise to build good will. Maybe a congressman wants a public works project in his state. It might seem like a waste of money, but it might also show good faith when it comes time to discuss bigger issues. This is how it worked for decades before polarization took over in the 1980s and beyond.
Ultimately, our faith as Christians has to inform our political positions. We cannot separate our faith from our political beliefs. We can, however, compromise to move the issues forward, even if it's a slow grind and not a radical shift. In other words, while our religious beliefs inform our political beliefs, our rigid defense of our theology should not be translated into a dogmatic rigidity on the political stage. We must learn to talk with one another. This is necessary in a pluralistic, democratic society. Without dialogue and compromise, we will not survive as a republic.
