Everything Congress needs to know about compromise they (should have) learned in Kindergarten
Don’t focus on the losing side of compromise
It’s not hard to find articles about how polarized and tribal our society is today, fueled by political pundits, social media, and politicians themselves, who’ve learned that fear-mongering turns out more votes than being reasonable.
Opinion: if the solution to polarization is discourse and compromise, we have to envision it before we can enact it.
Fortunately, I spend a lot of time trying to envision compromises. I have two boys, and any time a resource is scarce — cookies for dessert, a video game on only one computer, the chair on the left — they invariably squabble over it. And every time, I remind them (often with some exasperation, to be honest) of all the ways they could compromise:
- take turns
- share
- use it together
- play with something else
Like, I literally say those out loud to my kids. (This list is based on their school’s SEL curriculum, Kelso’s Choice.) Adults fighting in the political arena seem to have forgotten many of their lessons from Kindergarten.
Please allow me to give you a refresher.
Compromising as adults… like grown-ups
Obviously, different strategies apply in each situation, so one of the skills we have to develop is figuring out which ones work. Here are a few examples that show how Kindergarten (and Christian) values could transform our leaders.
Taking turns
As the early Christians were figuring out how to live, serve, and worship together, the Apostle Paul (Saint Paul) recommended orderly worship services. Singing, prophesying, and speaking in tongues were of no use if no one could understand what anyone was saying, so Paul exhorted speakers to take turns. Value: taking turns is good.
But how does that apply politically?
Perhaps you’ve heard of “you divide, I decide.” It’s a variant of taking turns and the time-honored method my sister and I used to get the absolute fairest split on any divisible resource — one sibling cuts the last slice of cake in half, but the other gets to choose theirs first.
Besides being good advice for worship services and Congressional debates, it also inspired an effective way to get non-gerrymandered legislative districts. Rather than giving up on the effort to find fair districts or trying to magically find a nonpartisan committee, you lean into the partisanship.
[The process] calls for one political party to divide a map of a state into the allotted number of districts, each with equal numbers of voters. Then the second party would choose one district to “freeze,” so no further changes could be made to it, and re-map the remaining districts as it likes.
The first party then would choose a second district to freeze from this map and proceed to redraw the remaining districts as it sees fit. This back-and-forth process would continue until all of the districts are frozen.
This method “has predictable and provable guarantees” about the extent to which either side can limit its opponents’ power or expand its own. It also illustrates the simple power of taking turns to come to an equitable solution.
Sharing
It’s a sad fact of life that 99.99% of us will never have enough money to do everything we want, but as any family can tell you, there’s always room to share if we’re willing.
Value: Christians are called to share what we have. In a famous passage about their lives, early Christians are described as being incredibly selfless:
All the believers were united in heart and mind. And they felt that what they owned was not their own, so they shared everything they had.
Like governmental budgets at any level, family budgets are about balance. Needs are needs —in government, things like Medicare and Social Security benefits that were already promised — but that’s the easy part.
Papa wants a fancy fishing rod, Mama wants a new hat, Brother and Sister want toys (in my imagined story). That’s where they have to negotiate. Spending reflects priorities, and naturally different parties have different priorities. Some people’s needs are more expensive; does that mean they don’t get any of their wants?
Lately, as a nation, we’ve essentially used the credit card to spend more than we make (tax revenue). The national debt is a serious problem that will take sacrifice to address. But even a deficit-free budget has wiggle room to share.
In a family, everyone is (I hope) trying to look out for one another. Maybe they could buy a smaller hat or a simpler fishing rod, or one toy for both kids, or buy toys at a garage sale. No one gets everything… but everyone gets something. Our government budgeting process might go more smoothly if that were our goal.
For an exercise in balancing wants at the federal level, this interactive tool lets you prioritize different areas of spending to see if you can reduce the debt and institute all the policies you favor.
Playing together
Did you know that I, a card-carrying Democrat, applauded Trump’s choice to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Did you know that I have conservative friends who support DACA and increasing immigration? Shocking, I know — we don’t all fit into a perfect party mold. In fact, neither party has just one mold. (If you’re curious, you can take a quiz to see how well you fit — everyone’s favorite internet activity, without the stealing your data part!)
Part of the acrimony in today’s politics comes from parties demanding, albeit implicitly, that voters and candidates alike swear absolute fealty. In exchange for a party’s support during elections, legislators are expected to support every bill their colleagues put forth. On the ground, politically active party members might shame a voter who doesn’t agree with every last talking point on their side.
Republicans seem to provide a stronger sense of belonging to augment their litmus tests; Democrats are less likely to use the word “disloyal,” but they can be every bit as mean. While “cancel culture” isn’t as effective as the canceled might claim, I can attest that certain groups — especially online or hyper-locally — can put pressure on members to toe the party line in its entirety. I wonder how many potential allies we might have driven away with this all-or-nothing approach.
While there’s a lot we can do to promote better representation in the future, right now we have the two-party system. There are moderate legislators who could help a specific bill pass, even if they don’t agree with everything the other side stands for, if we would stop calling that a “betrayal.” Accepting that legislators sometimes vote across party lines is the first step toward making the system work better for everyone.
Come back next week for everyone’s favorite excuses for not compromising, and what we can do about it.
