While watching Harold Ford and Markos Moulitsas discuss the state of the Democratic Party, I kept hearing the word "compromise" creep into the conversation. At first glance it seems like compromise would be a reasonable part of any political discussion. Theoretically, politics involves compromise; especially in a democracy where there are a multitude of different ideas about policies and differing groups have different sets of priorities. It sounds like an atmosphere ripe for compromise. If that were true, common wisdom would hold that all politics involve some compromise on the part of each party. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.
Recently, it was brought to my attention that it is selfish to insist that, on some issues, there can be no compromise. Apparently, in liberal circles, it is considered immature to insist that the Democratic Party strictly adhere to Democratic values when voting on legislation. Not so long ago I felt the same way. There was a time when it seemed perfectly rational to expect to have to compromise. But looking at recent history, I begin to wonder just how (or if) compromise works in the real world.
Merriam Webster Online defines "compromise" as 1) settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions; 2) a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial. Political discussions in the media generally operate within a conservative framework where compromise is the activity of weaklings. The general public has been conditioned over many, many years to think of the second definition when it comes to political compromise. Those who can compromise with "the other side" are lacking in principles and values; they are compromising their values when they compromise on the issues.
As an example, you can look to Bill Clinton. Most of the time that Clinton was in office, he worked with a Republican Congress. He seemingly had no choice but to compromise if he was going to get anything done. Did the Republicans appreciate or admire this trait? No, they considered his actions weak and accused him of weakening the power of the Presidency. How did Clinton’s ability to compromise when addressing pressing issues play out in the press? He was derided as a fence-sitter.
As another example, you can look to George W. Bush. It is puzzling as to how the American public could possibly consider him to be a man of character. His actions do not speak of character to progressives. Over and over again I have heard those who still believe Bush to be a man of character say, "You may not agree with what he stands for, but you always know exactly where he stands." They sure are right about that; he never compromises one iota. And they have been taught to admire that.
In politics, perception doesn’t just trump reality, perception IS reality. (A fact not lost on Karl Rove.) Compromise is perceived as weakness, whether you agree that it is or not. Therefore, compromise is weak. Until the general public starts seeing things differently, that is the political reality.
About the only time you hear Republicans talk about compromise is when they are bullying the Democrats into doing things their way. You never heard them talk about compromise when the Democrats were the minority party, or even before that, for that matter. The "Republican Contract with America" stated "...we intend to act ‘with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right’." Those words were not meant to imply that Republicans were going to compromise with the Democrats on anything. And they have rarely attempted compromise since.
One recent attempt at political compromise in the legislative branch was on the issue of immigration. Republicans attempted to pass a bill through Congress before the 2006 elections. Its two main architects were John McCain and Ted Kennedy. A talking point used by those touting the bill to progressive audiences was that although it was a compromise, at least it was a change. On the other hand, the opposition used the mere fact that Ted Kennedy was involved as an argument that the bill was an unacceptable compromise. The Senate passed the bill, but House Republicans could not bring themselves to compromise even amongst themselves and the bill failed to pass the House.
When Democrats compromise they are seen as weak. Most recently, the Democrats in Congress compromised on the Iraq War funding bill and the amendment to the FISA Act that seemed to have been written by Karl Rove himself. How did that play in the media? How did it play with the American people? How did it play with Democrats?
I don’t hear the Republicans talking about compromise inside or outside of their party. It doesn’t sound like the conservative wing of the Republican Party is willing to give an inch. All I hear from them lately is the cheers and applause on the House floor after they have bullied the Democrats into compromising AGAIN.
Perhaps compromise is not a good political strategy for Democrats right now. Maybe now is the time to stand firm for our most strongly held beliefs, like fairness, equality, justice, and freedom. Maybe that is exactly what the American public is looking for from the Democratic Party. If this is the defining moment for the Democratic Party, who will decide how the party is defined? And if now is not the time for Democrats to compromise, maybe it’s not time for true progressives to compromise either. Sometimes even a nurturant parent needs to stand their ground.