When Does Political Compromise Become Surrender?
“I want a cookie,” says little Harry. “If you eat your vegetables I will give you a cookie,” Mom counters. Harry reluctantly eats the vegetables and is awarded the cookie. Mom’s goal is to have Harry eat the vegetables. Harry’s goal is to obtain the cookie. Negotiations have been conducted, compromise has been made by both parties. The goals of both Harry and his mom are achieved.
But, if Harry refuses to eat the vegetables, resorts to a tantrum and Mom gives Harry the cookie in order to stop the tantrum mom has not compromised, she has surrendered. Harry got everything he wanted and Mom got nothing she wanted.
I suppose you could argue that the tantrum stopped but the tantrum was a tactic Harry used to gain leverage. Mom’s initial goal was not achieved and she relinquished a position of power by giving in to Harry’s demands while abandoning her principles.
Harry will certainly remember his success and use the tantrum technique again…and again…and again.
Professional politicians argue that in order to get anything done in the halls of power legislators must be masters of the art of compromise, but all too often they say they are compromising when they are really surrendering to their opponent. They have elevated compromise to the status of virtue, but all too often what they call compromise is really surrender.
To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. Surrender is when one party ceases to resist, gives up the argument and submits.
When someone surrenders an argument they abandon their principles and accomplish nothing; surrender is an exercise in futility. It weakens further negotiations and rewards and empowers the opposition. Someone who surrenders lacks conviction in their own stated beliefs.
Negotiation is normal, necessary and reasonable, but abandoning principles is not normal, is not reasonable and is not ethical. The Founders of our country wrangled for years to hammer out the wording of the US Constitution. Compromises, however, were on details, not on principles. The Founders knew they wanted government of the People, for the People, and by the People; they argued over the details of achieving that end.
A principle is a comprehensive and fundamental law, a doctrine; it is a rule of conduct and a personal, ethical code. Politicians seem to think they can abandon the Constitution, the will of the People, truth, goodness, honor, courage and personal sacrifice in the name of compromise.
When did it become the sensible or the right thing to do in the halls of power to compromise or even worse to cave in rather than stand firm for personal principles and a moral code?
Apparently elected officials think the voters are too stupid to notice.
We, the citizens of this great country, need to hold politicians to account. They need to know that we are watching them, watching what they do – not just listening to what they say. We can no longer allow those who serve us in government to lie, commit breaches of ethics, make political slights of hand, or surrender basic principles in the name of compromise. We the People must demand accountability from those who serve us in government and commit ourselves to exposing their actions and removing unprincipled men and women from office.
