Politics: Compromise or Consensus?

Politics has been called the art of compromise. But the word "compromise" often has negative connotations. Compromise implies that we have to give something up. When we are compromising our integrity, our principles, our goals, and so forth, that kind of compromise may come at too high a cost. A better word than compromise might be a consensus. Reaching consensus is not about "settling for less". It is not about making deals, concessions or "selling out". Consensus carries with it a sense of unity, and harmony, if not unanimity. People who reach consensus are willing to move forward even if the solutions are not perfect.

In legislation, the goal of consensus is much more important than compromise because the end result is binding laws and legislation. The end result of a bill voted on in Congress which commits great allocations of resources sometimes has "sunset" clauses, but often the money is committed indefinitely. When a budget is passed with a deficit, that deficit remains in place until new laws are passed to either increase revenue or reduce spending. This can be almost impossible because once resources have been committed, it is very difficult to deallocate them. Once a law is a law, many countries' constitutions require super-majorities to repeal them.

The idea of consensus and unity is not naive idealism. It is built into the very fabric of the constitutions that govern nations. It is the very foundation of Democracy. Without true consensus, when it replaced by compromise, the results can be devastating. A tragic example in American history was the failure to abolish slavery when the country was formed and the first constitution was written. The founders simply failed to live up to the words of the Declaration of Independence to which they pledged their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor". They were great men with great ideas but in the matter of slavery, their compromise cost America an immeasurable loss that continues to this day.

More recent examples which are not quite as severe are the failure of the American Congress and the President to reach an agreement on funding for border security without a government shut down. Another example is the failure of the Prime Minister of England and Parliament to fashion a means of implementing "Brexit". When Parliament and Congress fail to cooperate in order to find common ground on which to build consensus, they fail in the most basic requirements of their Constitution. They simply fail to do what they were elected to do.

Fortunately, there is hope. When politicians fail to live by their oaths of office to honor the constitution, the electorate can vote in new ones. Unfortunately, sometimes the electorate is strongly divided along partisan lines and votes back in the same people who have worked hard to fuel that division. Strong, negative campaigning from the "left" and "right" fuels division and appeals to fear and distrust of the "other side".

This is why I believe that, in America, the moderates voters in the middle need to raise up moderate candidates from various political parties who will pledge themselves to work cooperatively to enact multi-party legislation. Reaching consensus is not easy. It requires vigorous debate from people who represent diverse constituencies and ideologies. But in the end, the best solutions are those which merge and blend good ideas and can be fully supported by significant majorities.

In case you are wondering, no, I am not running for office. I am too happy at this stage in my life to ruin it by such an arrogant endeavor.  I am also encouraged by the recent vote to allocate significant funds to deal with the current crisis on the border which passed both the Senate and House in Washington. I considerate a glimmer of hope in a dark time that both houses of Congress and the President actually can work together for the good of the nation. Time will tell if this continues. (The date of this post is July 20, 2019).

Image source not found.