Compromise, and Why We Need It Now More Than Ever

I know, this isn't particularly related to anything I've written here. And yes, I'm aware that politics are a dangerous area to delve into. But don't worry! I just want to give my thoughts, speaking relatively generally, on the problems with politics today, and how they stem largely from a refusal to compromise. If you're interested in hearing what I have to say about modern politics, read on! If not, I would click off now.

Before you read, a quick disclaimer: I am not endorsing any or either side of the political spectrum, nor am I implying that any one group is to blame for the issues described in this article. I'm just merely frustrated with the state of modern politics, and I figured I'd write about it. Hopefully I don't rant too much. Enjoy!

The history of politics in the United States is, to put it lightly, checkered. From the very beginning, George Washington warned of the dangers of the two-party system. So, naturally, the nation's most brilliant minds promptly formed two political parties, beginning with the Federalists and the Anti Federalists. These two groups, known by their most notable leaders (Alexander Hamilton & Thomas Jefferson, respectively), immediately bred division and conflict throughout the country, with both sides clinging desperately to their own ideas. For instance, the formation of the national bank was championed by Hamilton; therefore, Jefferson despised the idea and insisted that, because it was not directly mentioned in the Constitution, it could not be instituted. Even though he strongly disagreed, both sides worked to develop compromises that benefitted the Federalists and their counterparts: Hamilton got his national bank, and Jefferson got his capital in the South. If you've taken AP US History, this is probably familiar, but the important aspect of this, in my opinion, is their willingness to compromise despite the problems between their parties. Jefferson and Hamilton were both fiercely devoted to their own ideas, but both men also recognized the necessity of compromise in order for any progress to be made; if that doesn't sound familiar, that's because that literally never occurs nowadays.

If you've ever followed the progress of a bill through Congress, or the development of a plan that the President wishes to enact, you likely noticed a few things: first and foremost, Democrats and Republicans have absolutely no intention of getting anything done. You might wonder how this could be the case, if both sides want something. How could both sides attempt to do something and still not intend to accomplish anything? Well, think back to what was required of Hamilton in order to get his national bank: he had to compromise. Have you ever seen either side, Democrat or Republican, actually attempt to compromise? No.

There lies the problem.

Let's say the Republicans control the House of Representatives, while the Democrats control the Senate. A Republican representative from Virginia draws up a bill to address what he views as sky-high tax rates; naturally, the bill breezes through the House. However, the problem is encountered in the Senate, where every Democrat strongly opposes a decrease in taxation in any form. A few routes could be taken: first of all, the Republicans could decrease the amount that taxes will decrease with the passage of the bill until the Democrats are willing to accept it. Or, perhaps, they could accompany the tax cut with a slight taxation increase on those in a higher-income echelon. The Democrats could propose decreased military spending to compensate for the taxation decrease, or at least a rearrangement of existing governmental funds in order to allow for the passage of the bill.

Or, of course, the Democrats could straight up vote down the bill. They either don't propose a compromise, propose a bill that does the complete opposite, or, on the rare occasion that they do attempt to compromise, the Republicans outright refuse to accept any changes. They may claim that the bill is already less drastic than they might wish; regardless, the outcome is always the same.

A system exists within the country that keeps this system intact. The only time any work actually gets done is when both houses of Congress are controlled by one party; thus, all bills that get passed are in support of the dominant party. This, of course, does not necessarily represent the opinions, needs, and wants of the entire country, as members of the "losing" side may make up 49% of the country's population; however, this group only becomes more and more polarized as the "winning" side passes bill after bill in favor of their political agenda. As the pendulum swings in one direction, it always swings back: eventually the losing side will always be back on top, and they make it their mission to undo all of the progress that the other side made, while producing their own legislation that plays into their ideas. This cycle is neverending, and the net progress is miniscule; that, of course, is the problem, which stems fully from a staunch refusal to compromise on either side.

If that sounds a little depressing, that's because it really is. The state of modern-day politics is truly sad, not only because of a refusal to compromise, but also because of an inability to even listen to other peoples' ideas. Both sides are guilty of this, as much as both Republicans and Democrats will claim to be the victim of targeted hatred and ignorance. If a Democrat proposes an idea or a reform, any self-respecting Republican will immediately dismiss the idea as radical and ridiculous; while some may truly believe that, the vast majority live in fear of their own party. While President Trump was in office, he openly berated members of his own party that even suggested that they may disagree with a Republican policy, or that they may agree with any slightly Democratic policy. Both sides are equally guilty of this behavior, and I cannot stress enough how detrimental this is to modern day politics. Political discourse is crucial to the growth of every nation, and it remains as one of the cornerstones of democracy; the United States was founded upon the basic principles of civil disagreement.

During my time in debate, I've learned just how difficult it can be to not immediately dismiss a view you disagree with. For instance, universal basic income: as soon as I learned about it, I disagreed strongly with its basic ideas; however, I had to argue both sides regardless. I discussed with people that supported the policy and thoroughly researched both sides, and although I came out with the same view, I also emerged with a much more open-minded approach to the ideas of others. I still struggle to grasp some ideas, but I firmly believe that if politicians could merely listen first and speak later, our nation would be significantly better off overall.

Civil discourse leads to compromise, and compromise leads to progress. If both sides truly have the best interests of the United States in mind, they must learn to compromise. I'm not exactly holding my breath, but who knows what can happen? If the pendulum truly does swing back, maybe our leaders will consider some other opinions for a change.

If you made it this far, congratulations! You're probably as annoyed as I am, or you at least have some sort of interest in politics. If you for some reason want to hear me discuss something specific that isn't too controversial, feel free to let me know! Also feel free to reach out if you enjoyed this article, or if you hated it; I want all the feedback I can get. Thank you all so much for reading, and have a great rest of your break, unless you're a Mets fan.

Emory