Compromise is the essence of any social system. Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism said, "All governments, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act - is founded on compromise and barter." With the sole exception, I might add, of tyranny, for tyranny is neither prudent nor virtuous.
But when principles and policy are shaped and driven by ideology, compromise is an anathema to be avoided at all costs. This refusal to compromise actually relates to an inability to accept reality. This re-sults, for example, in continued assault on settled law. As Arthur Schle-singer said so well in The Cycles of American History “Ideology…offers a field day for self-fulfilling prophecies”.
THE LOST ART OF COMPROMISE
Compromise is the essence of any social system. Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism said, "All governments, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act - is founded on compromise and barter." With the sole exception, I might add, of tyranny, for tyranny is neither prudent nor virtuous.
But when principles and policy are shaped and driven by ideology, compromise is an anathema to be avoided at all costs. This refusal to compromise actually relates to an inability to accept reality. This re-sults, for example, in continued assault on settled law. As Arthur Schle-singer said so well in The Cycles of American History “Ideology…offers a field day for self-fulfilling prophecies”.
For most, compromise begins when a tipping point is reached. Or, as I prefer to think of it, a pain threshold. Most eschew changing the status quo ante (the comfort of the known versus the anxiety of the unknown) until the pain of remaining still is too much to bear.
Zealots will often accept death rather than compromise, as they do not distinguish between compromise and the abandonment of principal and conflate the two. A political and personal maturity evidences on the part of those who will compromise before a tipping point is reached. For as Richard Hofstadter said: “The balance of powers is a harmonious system of mutual frustration.”
Iran today is a perfect example, for they are only at the bargaining ta-ble because of the onerous results of Obama’s economic sanctions, their senior leaders having reluctantly accepted reality. A contra exam-ple was the recent willingness of a few in congress to throw our econ-omy “under the bus” rather than pass a compromise budget.
While Iran is a trenchant case in point, so too is the inability of religious conservatists to accept any accommodation or limitation on the exer-cise of their faith. They, a distinct minority, militate to get the social system to accommodate to them, rather than moderating their views one iota. The Second Amendment absolutists, as regards to gun con-trol, and the intelligent design adherents, as regards evolution, are “fellow travelers”.
These are clear examples of intransigence brought about by the fragili-ty and vulnerability of belief systems. Systems that can brook no com-promise or they become invalid or tainted, thus must be defended at all cost. The striving for ideological purity means that the “slippery slope” of compromise is see as abandonment of principle.
But why do conservatives eschew compromise more than liberals? So-cial psychology, and its subset political psychology, has clearly identi-fied liberal/conservative value differences.
Conservatives center their moral views on resistance to change in a close-minded, tribal way. They accept, defend, justify and rationalize, and strongly resist all attempts to change – often in the presence of overwhelming facts. It is morbidly fascinating to see what bubbles up from their tar pit of paranoia such as climate change and Common Core.
Psychologically the resistance to change underlies conservatism. Con-sider the Tea Party or Libertarianism where followers consistently evi-dence the need for order, structure, closure, intolerance of ambiguity, cognitive simplicity, perceptions of, and heightened sensitivity to threats. Thus their endorsement of politically conservative opinions, leaders, parties, and policies, and applauding no compromise stances.
These traits show up consistently in literally hundreds of studies. Re-search established that the two core values that separate the right from the left, traditionalism (or resistance to change) and acceptance of inequality, indeed correlate with one another.
Interestingly, it has been observed that conservatives report being generally happier and more satisfied than liberals. This difference is partially explained by belief system justification.
Research now provides insight and understanding as to why conserva-tives abhor compromise. They simply will not accept the need to ac-commodate if they have to compromise their “values” in any way, large or small. Congressional gridlock and the intransigence of the far right are now more understandable.
I have touched on many of these issues previously so why do so again? It is the backwash from a “religious liberty” law recently passed in Indi-ana. It caused so much uproar that the legislature had to walk it back within a week of passage. Here again several of the value conflicts mentioned above raised their ugly head.
Does providing a wedding cake to a gay couple really and truly com-promise a persons religious beliefs, a persons convictions? Does such a service signify acceptance? Or are these actions simply a way to obvi-ate settled law they find odious? If a persons convictions are so fragile as to be compromised by such an accommodation aren’t they on shaky ground to begin with, blindly following dogma rather than well consid-ered principles?
When a person’s faith or principles are firmly and properly grounded they should be able to withstand the compromises so necessary to a properly functioning society. When dogma or ideology rules we then get a bifurcated society, at odds with itself, mired in hatred and misun-derstanding. Sort of like where we are today.