< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
In theory, the American political system is based on compromise, and has been since Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence came before the delegates at the Continental Congress in 1776.
The Declaration contained a long indictment of King George III, and the initial version included, in its list of royal offenses, the king's support of the slave trade -- even though Jefferson was a slaveowner.
But other slave-owning delegates wanted that paragraph removed. In the interest of unity toward the greater cause of independence, the anti-slavery delegates acquiesced. Thus America was compromised at conception, and the resulting national polity lurched along with the Missouri Compromise in 1820 and the Compromise of 1850.
The politicians who hammered together these compromises
-- Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John Calhoun -- were often
esteemed as statesmen at the time. But today, if you called
a politician a compromiser,
his attorneys, flaks,
supporters and spin doctors would come after you.
What happened to the noble art of compromise?
It works if Congressman A wants a new highway and Senator B wants harbor improvements. It doesn't work with moral absolutism, as America discovered in 1861.
One side believed that slavery was an absolute and intolerable evil, and the other that it was a beneficial institution fully sanctioned by the Bible.
Abraham Lincoln took office as a compromiser. Personally he abhorred slavery. As president, he was willing to tolerate slavery where it abided, but fervently opposed any expansion into the territory acquired by conquest from Mexico.
But the supporters of slavery were absolutists -- if
slaves were property, then they had the right to take their
property anywhere in the Union. They eventually raised the
issue of state's rights
later, but back then, they
wanted the federal government to supersede any local
authority over slavery.
The modern equivalent of the slavery question is abortion -- there isn't much middle ground, at least during a campaign season. It's either an absolute right, or else it's murder.
Modern politicians, although they eschew the word
compromise,
do try their best to compromise.
The Clinton-Cuomo straddle works pretty well, along the
lines of while I am personally opposed to abortion, it
should be safe, legal -- and rare.
Another common candidate compromise has the virtue of not sounding like a compromise. For instance, Bill Owens, the Republican candidate for governor, has said he opposes abortion except in cases of rape and incest, or when the mother's life is in danger.
That sounds like firm opposition, but it won't stand up to any analysis.
If a fetus is a human being as worthy of protection as any citizen, then the fetus is just as worthy if it results from rape or incest. After all, the fetus had no control over the conditions of its conception.
Otherwise, if you follow this logic, then it should be legal to murder adults who were conceived as a result of rape or incest. If they weren't worthy of protection before they were born, when by this theory they were just as human, then why should they be entitled to the protection of the law after birth?
But most Americans, while finding abortion repugnant or worse, do support allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. And so the anti-abortion candidate understandably compromises his absolutist position.
That's the problem with compromises -- they're the result of deal-making politics, not of logic or morality.
But America might be a better place if compromise
became a more honorable term. As it is, nobody wants to be
caught in a compromising position,
and every
candidate swears that she won't compromise her
principles.
These days we never read the praise that went to the statesmen of yore for their willingness to subordinate certain concerns in a compromise toward a common goal.
Why not? For one thing, there aren't any subordinate
concerns
in modern America. No matter what the issue,
whether it's peanuts on airliners or rock bolts in
wilderness areas, there is a large and vocal lobby which
elevates that issue above all others and announces that
Western Civilization, or perhaps even life on earth, will
collapse if its agenda is not enacted.
And for another, there aren't many common goals these
days. What's the point of compromising to get the job
done
if nobody can agree on what job needs to be
done?
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1998 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >