Say, What’s The Deal With “Compromise”?

Usually, one can count on The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza to be hyper partisan. Yet, this article, written with Sean Sullivan, makes a good point, that people do not really want compromise, despite polls slamming Congress for not compromising and all the yammering that people do. They tell us why

1. Everyone likes the idea of compromise — both in politics and in life more generally. We all like to think of ourselves as reasonable people who are always looking for the common-sense middle ground on a given issue and we want our politicians to reflect that approach. But, our desire for compromise goes out the window when it’s an issue that matters to us and/or where we are convinced we are right. Same goes for politics.

2. Compromise doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. One man’s compromise is another’s concession. Detailing what a compromise might actually look like in, say, talks about a grand bargain on debt and spending, would send many compromise-seekers running away from the negotiating table.

3. Compromise isn’t rewarded politically. Remember that large majorities of the House — Democrats and Republicans — face only one real threat to their political careers: a challenge from their ideological left or right. Redistricting, the decennial line-drawing process in all 435 House districts, is one reason for such lopsided districts. Compromise is a dirty word in primaries where the electorate tends to be the most conservative (or most liberal) voters who prize philosophical convictions over pragmatic legislating. There is not only no incentive to compromise then but there is actually a disincentive to do so.

The second point is the biggest one: we do not all think of compromise as the same. We’ve seen this recently with gun control. There are things we can compromise on, things that would make sense and would not violate the 2nd Amendment. Yet, where is that middle point? Where is the point that each side will give something up? Consider abortion: few on either side will meet at any point.

I’m willing to meet Warmists on certain points, but not for hotcoldwetdry. We do need to expand alternatives and find other, cleaner forms of fuel. Their idea of compromise is to tax fossil fuels out of existence and to waste tons of money on companies that are bound to fail (but were good Democrat donors), as well implement massive regulations that control every aspect of Other People’s lives.

There is a 4th point to this, namely that when a compromise is made, one side, and, let’s be honest, it is typically the Democrats, take advantage of that and demand more more more, either during the negotiations or afterwards.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Say, What’s The Deal With “Compromise”?”

  1. gitarcarver says:

    I would offer that there is another problem with “compromise” in that it will often deny the existence of “absolute truths.”

    For example, 2+2=4 is an absolute truth (in base 10 numbers). However, there are those who would say “2+2=6”

    When told that is the wrong answer, they will say “let’s compromise and say 2+2 can equal 5.”

    While some may scoff at that example, there was and perhaps still is a segment of educational professionals who think that when training kids the fundamentals of math such as basic addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, getting “close” and rewarding the child for that incorrect answer is a good “compromise” between telling the child they were wrong / hurting their self esteem and keeping the child’s self esteem at a high level by rewarding them for “trying.”

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Another post!

    I have discussed abortion with people. I am generally against the idea of abortion and always hear “compromise” from pro-abortionists.

    In the spirit of “compromise” when someone says “what about cases of incest? Rape? Health of the mother?” I will respond with “I’ll will compromise and give you those exceptions as long as you compromise and say except in the aforementioned cases, abortion should be illegal.”

    I have never had one person accept that offer.


    Not once.

  3. john says:

    RoevWade is settled law. The Bible does not consider a fetus to be a human. If you do not want to have an abortion do not have one. If you want more women to not have abortions give them more welfare, that will reduce the number. The state should not force a woman to carry a fetus she dows not want. If teh state wants to remove it and put it in a test tube. well just say so. Or stick it inside of the father ok go ahead.

  4. john says:

    The USA elected Obama he is a Democrat. 50% of Congress is controlled by the Democrats. Where should the line drawn ? Down the middle ?? I don’t think so. Polls always show taht Americans consider the GOP to be more extreme than

  5. So your not willing to compromise on anything, say, requiring parental consent, or at least notification?

    Republicans control over 50% of the legislative branch. Are you saying you’re not willing to compromise?

    This is what we have to work with, GC. I was going to give you a longer agreement reply, but then John chimed in, and I’m typing on Droid.

  6. 2 last things: first, I don’t know which far left kook fringe site you visited, but the Bible says life begins at conception.

    2nd, explain your rationale for supporting abortion on demand.

  7. And there’s the problem, GC, in that too many are unwilling to accept reality, truth, facts, etc, but have shades of gray where black and white should exist, and black and white where gray should exist.

    I try and avoid the abortion debate, except in terms of policy, and we see that many, like John, are completely unwilling to accept any sort of compromise. They aren’t sure why they support abortion on demand in any and all forms, with no restrictions whatsoever, but, someone told them they had to do it, so they do.

  8. gitarcarver says:


    RoevWade is settled law.

    The Second Amendment is settled law. That doesn’t seem to dissuade you from trying to attack it.

    (And in case you forgot, Dred Scott v Stanford was “settled law” as well. Wanna argue that should remain in effect?)

    If you do not want to have an abortion do not have one.

    If you do not want a weapon, do not have one.

    The state should not force a woman to carry a fetus she dows not want.

    The state should not force a person to give up their right of self defense.


    This is what we have to work with, GC.

    I know john will never change his mind. But as I have stated before, I reply to him simply because to let his lies and distortions go unchallenged would be wrong, in my opinion.

    (BTW – I sent you another story of interest that may have gotten caught in your spam filter. Do with it as you see fit. )

  9. gitarcarver says:

    Oh and by the way john, Roe v. Wade was settled on the idea of the never before stated “right of privacy” (which was not a concept in American jurisprudence until the early 1920’s when pushed by progressives.)

    However, what the court did not address in Doe v. Wade was when life begins.

    Liberals are deathly afraid of that question ever being asked or answered in the Supreme Court because that would put two rights – the relatively new “right of privacy” and the “right to life” at odds. The Court would then have to answer the basic question of “where is the greater harm? In extinguishing a life? Or privacy?”

    The answer would be “in extinguishing a life.”

    Abortion would then be gone.

    With every passing day, the “viability” issue gets smaller and smaller. Children are surviving outside the womb at earlier and earlier times. You made a passing comment that if the government wants to put a fetus in a test tube, they should. If they do that, that would mean the fetus is a life with rights and to extinguish those rights would be a moral and legal wrong.

    I always find it interesting when liberals argue themselves into a corner.

  10. Gimme_Oil_Gumballs says:

    as always, john is wrong and a liar. In fact, according to the bible, life actually begins BEFORE conception. And according to the bible and science the baby is fully aware and able to respond to stimuli.

    Compromise has led to 3rd trimester and partial-birth abortions.

    Compromise has led to previous amnesty plans.
    Compromise has led to big spending plans and higher taxes.
    Compromise has led to punishing through taxation specific people and groups of people.
    Compromise has led to TARP\Stimulus\Police-Teacher funding.
    Compromise has led to agriculture subsidies and market controls.

    Compromise has led to the decline of our nation and its values.

    We are now going to war in Syria for absolutely NO reason. Not even for oil. And the man pushing it is an anti-war president. But then, he is pro-Islam and pro-al-Queda.

Pirate's Cove