It is a peculiar word: Compromise. Webster's dictionary provides essentially three definitions. The first two are really close to each other, and represent what most of us think of when told that our Congressional representatives have again compromised with Republicans. That would likely be taken as "settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions." The second, somewhat equivalent "something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things" seems to provide the meaning from another perspective. We all feel good about compromises. They are those solutions we come up with through the process of negotiation where everybody sort of gets something and everybody gives something. Nobody gets everything they want, but then everybody gets something.
Often, with words, we add meaning to them from common experience that may not actually be found in the definition. For example, we may further tend to infer that there is usually some kind of balance or equity in a compromise. The two "blended" things are blended in roughly equal amounts, or the "mutual concessions" are of roughly equivalent number, magnitude or importance. It is crucial, though, to notice that the notion of equivalence or balance is not part of the definition. An unequal compromise is still a compromise. So, if I want your car and you want to sell your car, then we may essentially come to a compromise on the price. Assume that your car is a late model Mercedes. Let's say I wanted to pay $10 for it, and you wanted to sell it for $65,000. If we come to an agreement, after negotiation, of $150, then we have reached a compromise. I may go and tell my friends that I stole the car from you, but that wouldn't be literally true. It would be an appropriate use of figurative language, but if all papers were executed properly, the car was not stolen. It was purchased, and the purchase price was a compromise. There are, of course, some other requirements such as your being of sound mind and free of coercion, but we will assume those criteria are met.
Given this little known fact about the definition of compromise, it suddenly makes a lot more sense what our Democrats are doing when they tell us they have compromised with Republicans. We get a warm feeling like they have sold our car for a good price, or at least a fair price. Then we are confused when they tell us that they sold our Mercedes for $150. The problem here is one of semantics. Because our government is based on a tradition of compromise, we somehow expect that all is well when told that a compromise has been reached. It is us, not the Representatives and Senators, who have misunderstood the meaning of the word. Our elected officials have in fact delivered what we expect of them. They have crafted a compromise. Our expectation of equity in compromise is something we gratuitously read into the language. Caveat Emptor. To make it worse, there is a third definition of compromise: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial. This is where you say something like "his ethics have been compromised." Maybe, after all, that is the definition our Dems are using!
Now that we have cleared up the meaning of the word compromise, maybe we should consider some other words. Perhaps a good one to start with would be representative. Unfortunately, we will likely come up disappointed on that one, too. We may learn something useful, though. We may eventually get around to how the word vote is related to the definition of a specific use of the term representative.
Maybe we should start expecting more of our politicians than compromise. It might be that compromise is not really what we are looking for! Maybe we want equitable or fair compromises.