Compromise

[Montmorency]

Compromise may not be a desirable end in and of itself. But it's a good indicator that anyone that is unwilling to compromise is someone you wouldn't want ruling over you. A shibboleth, if you like.

What if the party or politician you choose to represent you decides, say, that they would be willing to negotiate the privatization of most public services to foreign low-bid contractors according to the "practical" reasoning that this can be traded in exchange for raising maximum penalties on regulatory violators by 5%? That's certainly one way of getting results, after all.

Oh, that's easy!

The old example of there being two ice cream sellers on a beach. Long story short they end up very close to each other in in the middle - as long as you are nearer more of the target audience than the other lot more will like you / hate you less than the other lot. And on average you'll win. So those that stick to principles will get nowhere unless this happens to be closer to more of the target audience.

I don't think real life corresponds well to this example. The beach goers have many different preferences, more or less malleable, and may exist in three-dimensional space around the beach plane.

Regardless, as I said, yeah?

a last resort in the exhaustion of other options

And what if sometimes defending principles is likelier to get you results than accepting just about anything in the name of "pragmatism".

Fight as hard as possible, only then settle?

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think real life corresponds well to this example. The beach goers have many different preferences, more or less malleable, and may exist in three-dimensional space around the beach plane.

And what if sometimes defending principles is likelier to get you results than accepting just about anything in the name of "pragmatism".

Fight as hard as possible, only then settle?

The example is static, one dimensional. Of course real life is dynamic, and multi-dimensional. That is why parties often move what they stand for and what they do stand for can have odd statements in it as they carve out niches that make sense in the particular election they are standing for. Corbyn is getting a mass of flack since Labour MPs can see many votes in just being anti-Brexit with the added bonus they might never have to follow through whereas Corbyn is sticking to something called his "principles" which only confuses career MPs.

For any matter, often it is the time frame one looks at that determines what the "best" approach is: Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely. Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way. Whilst pragmatically the Allies teamed up with a power they had been at the very least hostile to since its inception - where before they had not allied with for idealistic reasons.

Depending on the time frame and the outcomes you focus on either idealism or pragmatism could be shown to be good or bad.

[Pannonian]

The example is static, one dimensional. Of course real life is dynamic, and multi-dimensional. That is why parties often move what they stand for and what they do stand for can have odd statements in it as they carve out niches that make sense in the particular election they are standing for. Corbyn is getting a mass of flack since Labour MPs can see many votes in just being anti-Brexit with the added bonus they might never have to follow through whereas Corbyn is sticking to something called his "principles" which only confuses career MPs.

For any matter, often it is the time frame one looks at that determines what the "best" approach is: Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely. Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way. Whilst pragmatically the Allies teamed up with a power they had been at the very least hostile to since its inception - where before they had not allied with for idealistic reasons.

Depending on the time frame and the outcomes you focus on either idealism or pragmatism could be shown to be good or bad.

If Corbyn had stuck to his principles, he'd never have pretended to be for Remain whilst doing the minimum he could leading a party that was decisively (super-majority) pro-Remain. If leading a pro-Remain party was against his principles, he should have let someone else do that job instead. If he doesn't want to lead the Loyal Opposition against the government, he should stop taking money as Leader of the Opposition and let someone else do it instead. And as for career politicians; there are few in the Commons who've been there as long as Corbyn has.

[AE Bravo]

If it is valorized or preferred, it either has to do with the 1) status quo or 2) resistance to compromise as counterpoints, the latter being unhealthy for a healthy democratic process. It has always been evaluated the same way you would judge a law or policy. If it’s a given that the goal is political prudence, compromise is sought for when it is perceived to come closest to it.

It's tough to discuss the abstract in length. I have no idea what or where we are talking about.

[Husar]

I think compromise is often the goal in the sense that people

a) know that compromise is the only way to get anything because the opposition is well-known

b) as some kind of shortcut due to a, why state positions the other side won't agree with anyway if one can work on a practicable solution right away?

c) because people believe that everyone's interests should be served to some extent in a democracy and it has become common belief that compromise is the best and sometimes only way to recognize everyone's needs. Taking everyone's needs into account is seen as valuable and laudable, therefore compromise is valuable and laudble.

And "getting things done" faster is also seen as valuable and laudable.

In general I would guess compromise is preferred by risk-averse people, i.e. the mainstream, because they don't want to go all or nothing if nothing is a 90+% likely outcome.

[Montmorency]

<snip>

The historical example is a muddle.

Idealism after WW1 bankrupted germany and was a major catalyst of WW2. The idealism of pacifism in the 1930's followed by the appeasement pre-WW2 and also made WW2 more likely.

I don't see the applicability or relevance. "Pacifism", i.e. not preemptively attacking Germany, was driven by the pragmatic understanding that no one was ready for a Continental war, and that war was very expensive in all senses. What ideals bankrupted Germany?

Fighting WW2 on ideals gave the USSR East Europe on a plate and ensured the British Empire fell faster than it otherwise would have done and in a far more messy way.

The ideal of not finishing off World War 2 with a total war against a Eurasian superpower? And as I recall, Britain came off best when it accepted the situation and used diplomacy to secure its interests instead of fighting rearguard wars of attrition like Indochina or Algeria (or Kenya). Would you call Eden's grab for the Suez Canal an example of idealism or pragmatism, given the greater care afforded to dreams of imperial glory over the facts on the ground?

If Corbyn had stuck to his principles, he'd never have pretended to be for Remain whilst doing the minimum he could leading a party that was decisively (super-majority) pro-Remain. If leading a pro-Remain party was against his principles, he should have let someone else do that job instead. If he doesn't want to lead the Loyal Opposition against the government, he should stop taking money as Leader of the Opposition and let someone else do it instead. And as for career politicians; there are few in the Commons who've been there as long as Corbyn has.

If Corbyn didn't, he should have laid out his vision vis-a-vis Europe and why he disagreed with the party line. Has he avoided playing his cards? I don't want to have to look this up for myself, but you harp about it so frequently I may just have to.

If it is valorized or preferred, it either has to do with the 1) status quo or 2) resistance to compromise as counterpoints, the latter being unhealthy for a healthy democratic process. It has always been evaluated the same way you would judge a law or policy. If it’s a given that the goal is political prudence, compromise is sought for when it is perceived to come closest to it.

It's tough to discuss the abstract in length. I have no idea what or where we are talking about.

It's definitely a status-quo favorable value.

You have to be familiar with American political culture.

I could find a bunch of quotes from politicians and media to illustrate this, but basically the idea is that contemporary American politicians spread rhetoric about how good they are at compromise, how the other side is bad at compromise, how compromise is really important, and how the people want compromise. Then the media amplify these points, with the effect that people come to expect that "compromise" is something they are looking for in Congress and politicians.

I don't believe it was like that in the 19th century, and compromises of that era were sweeping affairs that involved intense competition between strong, irreconciliable positions (and often devolved into bitter acrimony).

I think compromise is often the goal in the sense that people

a) know that compromise is the only way to get anything because the opposition is well-known

b) as some kind of shortcut due to a, why state positions the other side won't agree with anyway if one can work on a practicable solution right away?

c) because people believe that everyone's interests should be served to some extent in a democracy and it has become common belief that compromise is the best and sometimes only way to recognize everyone's needs. Taking everyone's needs into account is seen as valuable and laudable, therefore compromise is valuable and laudble.

And "getting things done" faster is also seen as valuable and laudable.

In general I would guess compromise is preferred by risk-averse people, i.e. the mainstream, because they don't want to go all or nothing if nothing is a 90+% likely outcome.

I feel like my OP addresses this.

Cutting through, compromise is often against the interests of the majority of the population, even majorities of different groups represented by parties. Like the Democrats and Republicans during Bush and Clinton terms on border security. They compromised between "tough" and "tougher" policy, resulting in multiply compounding crises today. Like presently with the Social Democrats and the Conservatives in Sweden. Though the vast majority of the population reports a desire for higher taxes in exchange for more social services, both parties have issued assurances that taxes will only be cut, not raised. Thereafter, the compromise is over just how much to lower tax rates. Meanwhile, immigration is scapegoated for the decline of social services and welfare chauvinism infects popular discourse.



"Your money or your life!"
I give you my wallet.

Compromise...

Even the Bible acknowledged the irony inherent to compromise:

1 Kings 3:16–28 recounts that two mothers living in the same house, each the mother of an infant son, came to Solomon. One of the babies had been smothered, and each claimed the remaining boy as her own. Calling for a sword, Solomon declared his judgment: the baby would be cut in two, each woman to receive half. One mother did not contest the ruling, declaring that if she could not have the baby then neither of them could, but the other begged Solomon, "Give the baby to her, just don't kill him!"

The king declared the second woman the true mother, as a mother would even give up her baby if that was necessary to save its life. This judgment became known throughout all of Israel and was considered an example of profound wisdom.

It is so critical to understanding the present day that one recognizes the parallels to the political Left.

[Fragony]

As I say it you should always at least be willing to compromise, even if you really disagree, but demand something back

[Gilrandir]

Pacifism", i.e. not preemptively attacking Germany, was driven by the pragmatic understanding that no one was ready for a Continental war, and that war was very expensive in all senses.

Like everybody WAS ready and it was LESS expensive when the war did start.

Even the Bible acknowledged the irony inherent to compromise:

Do you realize whose intervention you make imminent when you mention Bible?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't understand your skepticism Monty...

Compromise is symptomatic of a healthy democratic political discourse. Increasing polarization in politics signals decreasing functionality of the body politic. Both in will to commit to projects that sustain the nation and in the analysis of options.

Bush/Clinton "tough" policies you talk about isn't a point against compromise, it is a point about the ability of the public to make bad decisions. Tough policies on border security was what the nation wanted at the time. The current leftist thought towards pro-immigration and diversity policies are a deviation from the pro-union leftist positions of the 90s which were strongly anti-immigrant.

[Montmorency]

Don't understand your skepticism Monty...

Compromise is symptomatic of a healthy democratic political discourse. Increasing polarization in politics signals decreasing functionality of the body politic. Both in will to commit to projects that sustain the nation and in the analysis of options.

I don't see how that's necessarily true. It may be better described as getting shot at from all corners.

Why isn't compromise better understood as a last resort? There is no such thing as a "middle ground", and the rhetorical pursuit of it seems to routinely deny good government. See again, the parable of King Solomon and the mothers' dispute.

Bush/Clinton "tough" policies you talk about isn't a point against compromise, it is a point about the ability of the public to make bad decisions. Tough policies on border security was what the nation wanted at the time. The current leftist thought towards pro-immigration and diversity policies are a deviation from the pro-union leftist positions of the 90s which were strongly anti-immigrant.

I agree that Democrats have become less anti-immigrant since Bush, but I'm not familiar with a connection to "pro-union" positions.

That's part of my point though. Democrats from the 90s on - though really beginning with Carter's admin - abandoned a coherent picture of what government should look like and do for the sake of imagined, putative popularity and moderation. Compromise should be about acceding to the best you can get, not proactively selling its image for its own sake. Making compromise your brand and motivation surely means you have nothing to offer.


I expect this is in Seamus' professional bailiwick, so hopefully he can check in by the end of the month.

[nagami]

Indeed, very interesting thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see how that's necessarily true. It may be better described as getting shot at from all corners.

Why isn't compromise better understood as a last resort? There is no such thing as a "middle ground", and the rhetorical pursuit of it seems to routinely deny good government. See again, the parable of King Solomon and the mothers' dispute.

Let's hold up here and recap the King Solomon story and see if I follow.
Two women claim to be mother of a child.
Solomon's judgement is to cut the baby in half, one for each woman.
Woman A goes along with the judgement. Woman B does not and asks Solomon to give woman A the child to spare his life.
Solomon declares Woman B to be the mother.

You interpret Solomon to be "the middle ground" when I don't see him as that at all. The cutting of the child doesn't reflect the equal partition to both parties, it is the outcome of an all or nothing declaration. If both sides demand everything, in essence you get nothing.

Woman B is actually willing to make the personal compromise to allow Woman A to have the child in return for the child's survival and she gets rewarded for it. W.B advocates for a wider purpose (general welfare of the child/other) than her personal politics (ownership of her child). Arn't biblical parables fun?

Another approach is historical. When was American politics most polarized? Likely the 1850s. In that scenario we see the all or nothing tactic play out to its full extent. Without rambling through lots of details, we see that unless one side is successful in exterminating any and all resistance, you wind up with gridlock or even potential reversal of gains. What gains from the emancipation of slaves were not totally reversed in practice, if not in law, by the turn of the century?

I agree that Democrats have become less anti-immigrant since Bush, but I'm not familiar with a connection to "pro-union" positions.

Labor unions wish to protect their competitive advantage by preventing cheap labor from immigrating to the country and undercutting their workers...and profits. These labor unions up until recently were the main financial drivers of the democratic party and their influence was present in democratic policies until the post-1960s style of liberalism became the dominant public strain sometime in the mid to late 1990s. See passage from a book I am currently reading (Rorty, Achieving Our Country):

Most leftist reformers of this period [pre-Sixties - ACIN] were blissfully unaware that brown-skinned Americans in the Southwest were being lynched, segregated, and humiliated in the same way as were African-Americans in the Deep South. Almost nobody in the pre-Sixties Left thought to protest against homophobia, so leftists like F. O. Matthiessen and Bayard Rustin had to stay in the closet. From the point of view of today's Left, the pre-Sixties Left may seem callous about the needs of oppressed groups as was the nation as a whole.

But it was not really that bad. For the reformist Left hoped that the mistreatment of the weak by the strong in general, and racial discrimination in particular, would prove to be a by-product of economic injustice. They saw the sadistic humiliation of black Americans, and of other groups, as one more example of the selfishness which pervaded an unreformed capitalist economy. They saw prejudice against those groups as incited by the rich in order to keep the poor from turning their wrath on their economic oppressors. The pre-Sixties Left assumed that as economic inequality and insecurity decreased, prejudice would gradually disappear.

In retrospect, this belief that ending selfishness would eliminate sadism seems misguided. One of the good things which happened in the Sixties was that the American Left began to realize that its economic determinism had been too simplistic. Sadism was recognized as having deeper roots than economic insecurity. The delicious pleasure to be had from creating a class of putative inferiors and then humiliating individual members of that class was seen as Freud saw it - as something which would be relished even if everybody were rich.

With this partial substitution of Freud for Marx as a source of social theory, sadism rather than selfishness has become the principal target of the Left. The heirs of the New Left of the Sixties have created, within the academy, a cultural Left. Many member of this Left specialize in what they call the "politics of difference" or "of identity" or "of recognition." This cultural Left thinks more about stigma than about money, more about deep and hidden psychosexual motivations than about shallow and evident greed.

This shift of attention came at the same time that intellectuals began to lose interest in the labor unions, partly as result of resentment over the union members' failure to back George McGovern over Richard Nixon in 1972. Simultaneously, the leftist ferment which had been centered, before the Sixties, in the social science departments of the colleges and the universities moved into the literature departments.

That's part of my point though. Democrats from the 90s on - though really beginning with Carter's admin - abandoned a coherent picture of what government should look like and do for the sake of imagined, putative popularity and moderation. Compromise should be about acceding to the best you can get, not proactively selling its image for its own sake. Making compromise your brand and motivation surely means you have nothing to offer.

I would say that (if I am understanding Rorty's position correctly), when liberals become psychoanalysts instead of economists they purposely abandoned government as an ineffective tool towards cleansing Americans of their personal sins. This of course will undercut their commitment towards any large scale policy goals and reinforces a self-flagellating mentality that insists your vision of the world is inherently flawed, and must be merged with many different values and opinions if it wishes to meet a purity test. In that perspective, yes, compromise is the ideal and is promoted for its own sake.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I expect this is in Seamus' professional bailiwick, so hopefully he can check in by the end of the month.

I have been reading the backroom only for a bit now. I had been taking it too seriously.


The use of compromise as a tool for conflict management has a long history but by definition, compromise never produces an ideal outcome. Consider this short piece on Thomas and Killmann's conflict management styles.

Ultimately, none of the five conflict management styles is ideal as all have their strengths and weaknesses. Avoidance may delay a problem, but seldom solves one and they often worsen, competition gives you the chance to win outright, but a mis-estimate of your power or the other party's can leave you locked in a painfully costly stalemate, etc. Compromise tries to minimize losses and realize some gains thereby, but by definition everyone loses a little.

Other points to consider:

Type of issue central to conflict. Something tangible and concrete like money or a commodity really is a zero sum situation. I wish to sell my home for as much money as possible and the buyer wishes to purchase it for as little as possible. If one of us can force the other to accept our preference, then competition is the logical choice for that power party. On the other hand, the power differential may not be very much, so both parties compromise rather than fighting it out on a win lose basis. Compromise is an acceptable and effective tool in such instances.

However, intangibles -- identity, respect, the values of a culture or religion, etc. do not lend themselves well to compromise, and neither do existential questions. If my daughter feels I do not respect her, we have to address the issues at hand and one or both of us will have to modify behaviors. I cannot compromise and respect her on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. To really address conflicts that center on intangible issues, either a collaborative or a competitive solution needs to be effected.

Importance to you. If the issue doesn't matter to you, accommodation may well be better than compromise. If I want to eat out with the wife so we can have a date night, and she wants Mexican cuisine again, compromising and going somewhere she won't enjoy so much but I can avoid Mexican food might end up souring the date night. If my real motivation is the date/relationship (and it is), then I should probably order the fajitas. On the other hand, should you threaten my children, I will do or die to stop you and there will not be compromise.


Interests v Positions. A classic from Fisher and Ury in Getting to Yes. Most people fight over positions "I want X!" when they are trying to achieve a certain end state {the interest}. They hide their real interest on the assumption that if it is known to the other party, that that other party will try to screw you over it. Sadly, most people get so caught up in arguing their position that they forget what it was in service of in the first place.

You are often better served by "revealing" your interest and then seeking to learn theirs. It can be surprising how collaborative solutions can become with clearer thinking.

A classic example is the Camp David accords. Both Israel and Egypt wanted the Sinai (which Israel held following the 1967 conflict and retained after a near loss in the 1973 dust up). Carter was able to keep them talking long enough to actually learn WHY they wanted it. Israel's concern was physical security. Egyptian tanks starting an attack from only 5 miles south of the kibbutzim was an existential threat. Israel took the Sinai as a buffer. Egypt, by contrast, wanted the Sinai for identity reasons. It was a part of their country, part of their national pride centered around Egypt being run by Egyptians etc.

The answer ended up being surprisingly simple. Israel gave back the Sinai, Egypt agreed to leave it as a demilitarized zone and allow the Israeli's to verify that status. That one agreement stopped the every-decade-or-so bloodlettings that characterized the Middle East in the mid 20th. There certainly have been unintended consequences and any number of other concerns in that region, but the CDA did completely alter the landscape. Without Egyptian personnel, even the most hateful of Israel's neighbors realized that the "push them into the sea" thing was a non starter. Obviously, it did NOT inspire all parties to follow Jordan's path and seek a quieter path.