Failing to Compromise about Compromise

Wiktionary provides the following definition for "compromise": "Noun compromise (plural compromises) 1. The settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions. 2. A committal to something derogatory or objectionable; a prejudicial concession; a surrender; as, a compromise of character or right."

There is a huge gap between the first and second definitions.  The first one suggests working out differences through a process of give and take.  In the world of politics, politicians generally can only get things done if they compromise, and we speak of "principled compromise" as being a good thing.  The second definition takes the opposite view of compromise: to compromise is to "sell out" one's values.  It is thus immoral and ultimately detrimental to the well-being of the body politic.

In times past, Democrats and Republicans largely operated in the political sphere on the basis of definition one.  They practiced the art of compromise.  Not always, of course, and not always wisely or well.  But, messy as it is, politics by compromise allowed the two parties to work together.  Today, however, an important segment of the American public assigns exclusively the second definition to the word "compromise."  The video clip below captures the spirit of our politics beautifully.  In it, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner refuses to label as "compromise," the necessary political process of reaching agreements through a process of given and take.  He calls is the process, "finding common ground."  That is definition one.  When pushed to admit that finding common ground is compromising, he becomes a bit angry.  The video goes on to an exchange between a Republican pundit  and Democratic pundit regarding the meaning of the word "compromise," in which they become dismissive of each other.  They can't compromise over the meaning of the word "compromise."  It's one of those things that would seem silly if it weren't so sad.

What has happened is that the tea party wing of the Republican Party rejects definition one out of hand even to the point of rejecting compromises that weigh heavily in their favor.  That's why Speaker Boehner has to reject the word "compromise."  To their credit, the tea party representatives genuinely want to change the give and take gamesmanship of politics, which sometimes really does not work in the best interests of the nation.  But, they are learning that they can't change the culture of Washington alone.  They need "establishment" Republicans, independents, and Democrats to do so, all with their own concerns and agendas.  Even if they don't call it compromise, eventually they will have to learn to "find common ground" with the rest of the country if they want to accomplish anything at all.

Anger in America

It was a moment not to be taken lightly when presidential candidate Newt Gingrich angrily turned on the moderator of the last Republican debate before the South Carolina primary for bringing up an interview with Newt's ex-wife.  Newt was at his best—at once professorial, accusatory, self-righteous, vibrating with palpable emotion, and pandering to a cheering, equally angry audience.  Newt the giant slayer faced down the evil dragon of the left-wing, elitist media.  This was high political theatre, which mirrored a reality of our nation in 2012: there are a lot of angry people in America today and not just on the Right.

The sources of anger are many, and to a degree they reflect hard economic times.  In the political arena, there seem to be two major currents of anger and angst.  The tea party movement represents the right wing of our anger, and the occupy movement the left wing, although they are not mutually exclusive and both express the deep-seated feeling that things are not right with America.  At the heart of the occupy movement is the fact that income disparity is growing and has become a serious social ill.  We have a system where the rich are really, really raking in the dough while more and more families are falling into the dark well of poverty.  The tea party movement is a reaction to another fact, namely the "browning of America."  The social commentators love to  point out that we are rapidly becoming a majority of minorities and that soon enough white Americans will be but one more minority in a nation that used to be theirs.  Economic disparity and rapid social change create anger.

As a member of a gloriously "brown" family, my sympathies do not lie with the tea party nor do I share their fears.  That being said, we should all be painfully aware of the fact that anger and fear are not just emotions.  They are spiritual states as well, ones that have a profound impact on behavior and well-being—mostly a negative impact.  Angry people do angry things.  They cannot listen.  They find it impossible to compromise.  They provoke angry responses.  Demagogues pander to their fears in order to gain power.  Their anger thus poisons the political landscape in a way that makes it all but impossible to address the root causes of anger.  Their anger creates dangers that don't exist and enemies where there are none.

And when movements and politicians build their base on anger, they are doing exactly that thing that Jesus warned us not to do.  They are building their house on sand (Matthew 7:24-27), and as Jesus said, "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell—and great was its fall!" (7:27).  Whether it be the tea party folks or the occupiers, if they cannot move beyond their anger to something positive and creative, their movements are doomed to failure, a failure that could have ugly ramifications for the whole nation.  Angry people habitually destroy the very things that matter most to them because anger, even if originally justified, always and rapidly turns destructive if not transformed into something positive.