DECEMBER 4, 2019 – Let’s get down to basics. The hallmark of representative democracy is the dirty word, “compromise.” For all too long, we have lost the art of compromise.
On the right, fear, greed, myopia, ignorance, and religious dogma have brought us intolerance and unprecedented demagoguery.
On the left, disregard for real-world economics and the role of politics in the legislative process has bred insistence on a rigid, “pie-in-the-sky” agenda, and outrage has spawned demonization of Trump supporters proportionate to the evil of his demagoguery.
Marginalized, disregarded, and often vilified by right and left is the political center.
Unless we come to our senses and soon, this rigid face-off between right and left with eviscerated center will lead to the undoing of American Democracy. As flawed as our system is, its demise will bring dark consequences, for us and the world.
By way of a thousand paths we’ve descended into this canyon of no compromise. Each route down the jagged canyon walls is linked to other trails, and at the bottom they converge into the muddy current of history rushing toward troubled times. Yet we race down, down, down in a way that can’t end well.
When rigid politics moves from street to family gatherings (or worse, precludes the latter), we have our “red flag” warning. If we can’t stand to have Uncle Harvey at the table because of his political “nonsense,” it’s but one dangerous step before we’re shouting “Lock [him/her] up!” at a political rally—and one small step beyond that to cheering when the lock-up actually occurs—to hell with facts, law, or reason, let alone due process. And overnight it seems, we become a society in which the end (raw power) justifies the means—any means.
In such circumstances, all is lost, for once political enemies are jailed merely for being so, even the jailers are no longer safe.
Before we stumble to the bottom of the canyon of no compromise to be drowned in the furious waters, people on the right need to dump demagoguery. People on the left, meanwhile, need to gather support by appealing to the self-interest of their opponents—and explaining how rational, meaningful change is the best inoculation against revolution destructive for all.
And the dwindling numbers in the center need to relinquish the shadows, forge compromises with left and right and lead the way out . . . before it’s too late, before the raging current drowns us all.
To get ourselves—the people we like and the people we can’t stand, because one definition of a democracy is “a society in which you have to live with people you can’t stand”—out of this predicament, we’ve got to rediscover the art of compromise.
There is one catch: compromise doesn’t mean tossing out the compass or treating “north” as “south,” “west” as “east.” Fiction shouldn’t enjoy the currency of fact any more than fact should be denigrated as fiction. These principles aren’t stated in the Constitution, but they should guide all political discourse.
(Remember to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.)
© 2019 Eric Nilsson
4 Comments
Great column! I especially liked the “Before we stumble…” paragraph, which would work just as well with “right” and “left” switched. Unless both sides can admit that at least a bit of demagoguery may infect their ranks, and can admit to occasional dismissiveness of any possibility of rationality in the ranks of their opponents, it is hard to see how good conversations, let alone compromise, can happen. I know people who don’t bother to learn what their opponents’ views are in any but a superficial way, since it is easier (and more righteous!) to write them off as “progressive” or “Republican”, rather than finding out what they believe and why they believe it. Eye-opening for me was a survey suggesting that the less educated someone is, the better they predict what answers their political opponents will give to policy issues questions. Maybe they live in less of a bubble than more educated people do?
Chuck, I’m glad you’re enjoying my blog. Yes, I do like to balance the subject matter, though I’ve noticed that the political stuff tends to draw a larger following. Originally (this a.m.), I was contemplating a non-political piece for my next post, and then, doggone it, I’ve wound up writing another political one! But though I might rant and rave in private, I try to follow certain “rules” with posted stuff–certainly no profanity (it’s the hallmark of the inarticulate!) but also nothing that would attack the assumed integrity, good intentions, et cetera of my readers, however critical my posts might be of public figures left and right, though admittedly, mostly right–several of my followers are Trump supporters; several are pretty “out there” on the left. And yet . . . and yet, despite my efforts toward civility, I’ve had four “FB friends” send me private messages telling me that while they liked my writing, they were OFFENDED (!!) by my political views and were therefore de-friending me. Each one happened to be quite a staunch Trump supporter, and, I surmise, a tad insecure. Not sure what to make of it. — Eric
It is too bad when civility wears so thin! It seems way more common now to be talking with someone about a mutual friend or acquaintance, in a context seemingly devoid of politics or religion, and to have that someone gratuitously remark, usually in a derisive tone, “well, she’s a Baptist, you know”, “he’s a flaming liberal, you know”, or “they’re Republicans, you know,” as if that says it all! Maybe it does say it all, for them, but I cannot bring myself to praise or denigrate someone whole-hog for having any of those real or imagined traits. I think I would miss out on a lot of potentially enriching friendships and conversations. But, I guess if someone thinks I am beyond the pale, or should have a pail over my head, because I was put off by both Hillary Clinton AND Donald Trump during the last election (and my dislike has intensified since), they should feel free to dismiss everything I think and say, but I do think, selfishly, that they (and I) are missing out!
Apropos of your talk about “categorizing” people, I’ve learned to temper my own inclinations in that regard by holding certain people up as “points of reference.” The key example is Cliff. Here’s a guy who frankly is one of the smartest, quickest I’ve ever known, and I’ve observed him in a host of circumstances–dealing with employees, tough customers, people of influence, politicians, astute business people, lawyers, friends and family members. His brain works at hyper-speed. Plus, he’s generous to a fault, curious about the world, and has a huge heart and unfathomable capacity for getting things done, right, well, and promptly. In other words, in my book, he’s a model citizen. He’s also still an unabashed supporter of Donald Trump (having done a ton of business with the Trump Organization and Trump’s NJ country club). We laugh openly about our opposing politics, which, in this age, is somewhat miraculous–he chides me; I chide him, sometimes vociferously, and either way, we always laugh and move on. But on top of all that came the defining moment: you might have heard that at Byron/Mylene’s wedding at the lake, the DJ indulged in some crazy talk replete with racial (Asian, if you can believe it!) slurs. I myself didn’t hear it–too tangled up in conversation on the periphery, I guess–but I later heard about it. Despite many “liberals” being in attendance, who was the person to follow the DJ back to the port-a-potty during a break, await the DJ’s exit from the biffy, and then read him the riot act? Not a lefty, not a liberal, but the inimitable, Trump-thumping Cliff! So whenever I hear others denigrate Trump supporters–and whenever I myself am tempted to do the same–I think of Cliff. Am I going to cast him–and others like him–into the same pen? Of course not! Ditto the hedge fund manager who sits on the WPI board–Harvard undergrad, Harvard Biz, Harvard Law . . . and a (reluctant) Trump supporter. Am I going to call HIM stupid, mean and nasty? Just can’t. None of which is to apologize for the many Trump supporters I conversed with on the fringes of the anti-Trump rally outside Target Center. When I attempted to “get inside THEIR heads,” I have to say, my confidence in the democracy plummeted. Likewise with the hooligans from whom I rescued a couple of young Trumpsters! Finally (what’s another 100 words), I still see a world of difference between Democrats and Republicans; Hillary and Trump. As I learned from the politics of forming something as ostensibly benign as a lake association, I discovered long ago that to make “progress” you usually have to slow down to the lowest common denominator, with the aim of applying a modicum of idealism here and there to raise the consciousness of the larger cast. If you strive for purity and perfection in politics, you’ll wind up playing “solo” against a cacophonous crowd–or worse; you’ll find yourself performing with the band on the listing deck of the Titanic. Okay–back to woik! — Eric
Comments are closed.