Why It Might Be Hard to Compromise
But the alternative is endless conflict and government that goes nowhere.
My last post was about all the ways that compromise could look in modern politics. Appropriately enough, my political type — as defined by the quiz I mentioned —is the group most likely to favor political compromise, and I stand by the idea that we’ll need that to move forward.
But that doesn’t mean compromise is, like, fun.
Naturally, it’s more fun to get your way. Unfortunately, most problems, from the traffic noise in your neighborhood to global climate change, cannot be solved by one person. We need to work together, but we’re stuck arguing. Why?
Disagreement makes you tired
We all hate opinions that differ from ours, not least because discussing opinions that you disagree with is literally exhausting. It would be so much easier to just avoid people whose ideas upset us.
The problem is that avoiding people with whom you disagree causes information silos and echo chambers, which inhibit the ability to work together that we so desperately need.
Compromise feels like losing
No one likes losing, obviously. (I mean, there are some sports teams’ fans that seem to, but…) By definition, a compromise means everyone conceded something so that an agreement could be reached. If you succeed in compromising, you don’t get everything you wanted.
It takes maturity — and hard work to reach that level of maturity — to realize that the feeling of a losing a little is worth the benefit of everyone getting something.
Compromise feels like disloyalty
Elected officials have, on occasion, remarked that their election is “a mandate” from the people to implement the ideas they stand for. The people and party who worked to elect a candidate expect that candidate to follow the policies they supported (popular humor about empty promises notwithstanding). It’s not surprising, then, that compromising in a political reality could feel disloyal to or inconsistent with your party.
However, I can’t think of a single public election that was decided unanimously. It’s rare to get more than 60% of the vote, and several US presidents have won the office despite losing the popular vote (due to the way the electoral college works). The mandate to govern and “majority rules” are things we agree to as a democratic society, but individually, we need to remember that if the other party had won, we wouldn’t want to be ignored, either.
Compromise feels like like a lack of integrity
For this whole article, I’ve been talking about the kind of compromise that’s “give and take.” But the word in English has multiple connotations. Here are the definitions from my favorite dictionary (and yes, I’m the kind of person who has a favorite):
- settle a dispute by mutual concession
- accept standards that are lower than is desirable
- bring into disrepute or danger by indiscreet, foolish, or reckless behavior
Certainly no one wants to compromise, say, their integrity (definition 2) or security (3). That’s not a problem, except that people don’t necessarily all view a particular compromise in the same way. For example, one group might think they’re trying to (definition 1) on a policy, but their opponents might feel like that the same bill is asking them to (definition 2) their moral beliefs. Unsurprisingly, that situation results in bad feelings all around.
While many liberals seem to hold their ideals with religious fervor, a segment of evangelical Republicans have done so more literally, as their identity is tangled up equally in political views and religious beliefs. While the Bible warns against compromising one’s integrity (definition 3) or God’s commands (definition 2), it also urges Christians to live “at peace with everyone.” That’s why it’s so critical for Christians to be interrogate their actions: we must make sure we’re not clinging to a political angle that isn’t as critical to our faith as it feels.
Now what?
Society doesn’t work if everyone insists on getting everything they want — just ask any parent with more than one child.
It takes extra effort for us to use our “mammal brain” to overcome our “lizard brain” instinct to reject new ideas. Happily, human beings have the brain capacity to recognize that people deserve to be considered, even when they want something different from what we want.
When you feel annoyed or angry, take a deep breath. See if you recognize any of the above instinctive reactions, then give your brain a moment to process the feelings before you try to move forward with facts. Psychologist Jennifer Delgado emphasizes the good that comes from making the effort:
Listening to people with interest, even if they have an opinion different from ours, is the ultimate test of empathy, respect and assertiveness, the keys to avoid generating irreconcilable antagonism.
Christians have the extra motivation of a biblical calling, but I hope that wherever you are on the political spectrum, you’re tired of “irreconcilable antagonism” and ready to move toward a better future.
I wrote this draft before the US Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. While I will address the subject of abortion more later, here’s an example of a divisive topic that makes excellent food for thought.
Whatever your opinion, ask yourself, “What compromise would I accept in abortion law if I never had to fight about it again?” Meaning you would agree not to fight it, and so would the other side. What could you accept that the other side wouldn’t reject out of hand?
It will feel gross! That’s what makes it a good experiment: both sides would love a complete victory, so any compromise feels like a deep loss. But the nuance of real life makes victory impossible. Instead of continuing to fight, could you come up with a middle ground that you could live with, so that we can all move on to new policy debates?
