Biden’s choices
The short answer is: rotten compromises are not allowed, even for the sake of peace…
--Avishai Margalit
Avishai Margalit is an author, emeritus professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and served as the George Keenan Professor at the Advanced Institute of Study in Princeton. Margalit is the author of On Compromise and Rotten Compromises among other works. A look into Margalit’s thinking as the Biden Administration is trying to establish a more bipartisan approach after four disastrous years (some would argue decades) can be useful in an analysis of our current politics can be enlightening. The argument against certain compromises that may be forthcoming begins with the conviction that the Republican adherence to Trump, even in the face of a coup attempt and invasion of the Capitol, should not be rewarded with graciousness or even the lure of bipartisan pragmatism. You cannot grease the gears of government with comity after they had been doused in blood.
In that regard, the Biden presidency faces a daunting task. After Trump's four years (children born on the anniversary of his inauguration are rumored to have aged an additional year or two), reasserting an agenda that promotes democratic ideals with narrow majorities in the House and Senate will be a tough haul. There were so many core issues generated from the failed presidency of the past four years that Biden has his pick of urgency. Whether it is ridding the conscience of their dystopian immigration policy, the right’s catering to racist hate groups or the administration’s dalliance with corruption and lawlessness, Trump provided Biden with an endless list of issues to confront. In viewing the items on the agenda above, clearly, if they were listed in order of importance, the #1 item isn’t even listed.
An End to state-supported racism
During his campaign and with his choice of Kamala Harris as running mate, it was clear that ending systemic racism was both a promise and an expectation the administration must deliver on. Not only central to his victory, the rampant denial of rights to black and brown communities across the nation demanded a response from the new administration once it took over the presidency. The commitment of the grand alliance of special interests that supported the Democrats led by the black community deserved special consideration not merely for their loyalty to the Party, but more importantly for their patience and endurance in waiting for America to keep its promises to them. This is America’s opportunity to deliver on those promises and to end what has been in effect state-supported racism. In terms of placement on the administration’s “to do” list, most of the items address restorative rather than innovative commitment. The Green New Deal. for example, begins with a reassertion of our commitment to the Paris Accords initially championed in the Obama presidency.
The task at hand
The complexities of addressing often competing needs with legislation and budgetary outlays are what makes the task so daunting. The answer, of course, is to focus these interests on a single, overarching commitment to policy. While several of the items on the list have room for compromise, most don’t. So, it falls to Biden and his administration to take on what has frustrated those who have tried and failed before them. Before Biden ventures out beyond his own party, the rift that separates the moderate and progressive ranks poses his first test. Creating a governing majority in both houses of Congress is next. Finally, gaining the trust and support of voters whose interests are as disparate as those within the party or the Congress is perhaps the biggest challenge. In each case, that challenge involves building trust through persuasion, certainly. However, persuasion alone is not enough, especially when trust is most critical within the Party and out in the nation’s communities. While it is customary for politicians to seek compromise within the political spheres of inter-party and government politics, that has proven to be a near impossibility. A push for bipartisanship in the current climate would trade internal party allegiances for the chance of support across the aisle from Republicans:
...majority parties have not become more efficacious in enacting their agenda priorities. Majority party succeeded on about half of their agenda items on average per Congress and failed on the other half. And those rates of success and failure haven’t changed substantially over time. We find that the causes of majority party failure have also not changed that even though the parties are much more ideologically coherent, internal party division still remains a persistent obstacle to majority party success.
--Frances Lee, co-author of The Limits of Party
Intra-party discord can be just as limiting to the achievement of a Biden/Harris administrative agenda as disagreements with the opposition. Each party in power has the tendency to downplay the former in favor of the latter. But the current administration does have several advantages that play in its favor:
- Dems hold both houses of Congress, albeit by slim margins, for the next two years, and their prospects of maintaining
- that advantage appears at the moment to be better than 50/50, given the disposition of the Republican Party post-Trump.
- Biden is more experienced with the workings of Congress and has forged respect if not friendships with many current legislators.
- Compared to any modern president after Nixon, Biden’s experience as a life-long creature of the Senate benefits him as it has few others.
- Finally, at the staff level, Biden’s close associates and confidants are both talented and skilled in the wiles of political warfare.
Altogether, advantage Biden. Biden has an added advantage in that he has nothing to lose and his personal history suggests steel-in-the-spine unaccustomed to most of the politicos he will engage. Scrappy, proud, tough, and perseverant are attributes that can be ascribed to this president that few, others have possessed.
beware, Inhuman regimes
To accomplish his goals, then, Biden must persuade the voters who elected him (and some who voted against his candidacy) as well as legislators. Biden’s political capital will be built as much on the public’s perception of competence and fairness as it will be on the judgment of those on Capitol Hill. The use of reconciliation to pass the popular COVID relief stimulus is a start. If polling is any indication, the stimulus package will benefit a large group within both parties. Along with the obvious need for economic relief, the assertion of the administration’s interest in fighting both the disease and its effect can build a Democratic majority for the mid-terms. Additional strength in the House and Senate will then promote the more progressive items on the agenda. The various factions in the Democratic Party must agree on which issues for them are most helpful in building majorities in order to avoid a short-term victory that will dissipate as the Biden term moves on. The fewer “nonstarters” on the Democratic list the better. The nature of compromise within the party should center on justice. Any compromise that causes an unjust result is not morally acceptable. Similarly, internal intransigence that precludes the building of political capital for future successes should not be politically acceptable. Within the Party, there can be movement on several fronts. Certainly, the minimum wage can be negotiated both in terms of how much is enough and how it is implemented. The fight against racial injustice cannot. Similarly, The Green New Deal is non-negotiable due to the urgency of the climate crisis. However, there is room within the overall policy for trade-offs, Not so with voting rights. You get the picture. Because of the nature of the major items on his agenda, compromise with his political allies and foes may not be in play, and for good reason. After centuries of denying our nation’s systemic racism, there is no room for compromise. On this issue alone, the morally reprehensible decision to sidestep the issue of slavery made by the Founders represents the worst kind of compromise, the ones Margalit calls rotten:
I see a rotten political compromise as an agreement to establish or maintain an inhuman regime, a regime of cruelty and humiliation, that is, a regime that does not treat humans as humans. Throughout the book I use “inhuman” to denote extreme manifestations of not treating humans as humans. Inhuman in the sense of cruel, savage, and barbarous behavior conveys only one element of “inhuman” as I use the word; humiliation is another element. Humiliation, as I see it, is already not treating humans as humans, but humiliation intensified by cruelty equals “inhuman.” So a fusion of cruelty and humiliation is what an inhuman regime consists of.
The idea of an inhuman regime, a regime of cruelty and humiliation, guides my understanding of rotten compromises. The basic claim is that we should beware of agreeing, even passively, to establish or maintain a regime of cruelty and humiliation—in short, an inhuman regime.
The issues that Biden must lead on will allow for little compromise both within his party and without. In an era in which the political opposition embraces the likes of racists and white supremacists, however, the will to resist a rotten compromise is the president’s greatest test. To avoid either agreement or passive capitulation to tyranny is the non-starter, the redline that Democrats cannot cross for the sake of an immediate goal. This will be this generation of Democrats' personal test of leadership. Within the Party, Biden must realize he has no equal. He is and should act like “the boss.” Dissent within the Democratic fold can only be counterproductive and recalcitrance should be quelled. Joe Manchin cannot be allowed to derail progress on the core issues for the sake of personal benefit and under the guise of moderation. (Instead of acceding to the grievances of the West Virginia base, he should begin the process of leading them.) The unbridled adherence to self-interested politics at the expense of justice and adherence to the common good must end.
Whether they intended it or not, our forefathers made this the basis of their experiment, even if they fell short in their practice. Compromise is only a virtue in the furtherance of good. Trade-offs work best when what each side gives up is worthy of the fight. There is no moral equivalence for bigotry and hatred born of race, creed, or status. Biden’s task is to assert those policies that cannot be sacrificed to expedience any longer, policies that are not negotiable because they are not worth the peace. Choosing the hill he chooses to die on is made simple for Biden by simply understanding that there is no room in his agenda for rotten compromises.