Compromise and Fundamentalism

In conflict resolution, I used to be a big fan of compromise. It seems like a decent way of doing things. I want X and you want Y, so I get X-1 and you get Y-1. Fair all around.

Of course, better yet is finding ways where we both win. Roger Fisher’s Getting to Yes makes just such a suggestion.

And then there’s this: Democratic Congress vs. Republican President. It’s a showdown except there is no real showdown.

The more prominent story is the FISA bill, which is yet another example of Democrats blinking in the face of a Republican game of chicken, but here is one more insidious to me.

Remember last year when we successfully rid ourselves of the worst Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales) ever? Michael Mukasey was put forth as a compromise pick. Unlike AG as AG, Mukasey was smart. Unlike AG, he was willing to talk and compromise. That was the spin. Despite his refusal to answer any of the tough questions, Democrats gave him the nod.

From moment one he refused to be an upgrade for Gonzales, pushing the Bush agenda from a post that needs to be independent from the president as chief prosecutor. Then this was brought to my attention.

Maybe he’ll show up under the threat of arrest. Or not.

We’ve let others declare themselves immune for having had lunch a couple of times with the President. Mukasey ducked the hard questions and the Democrats gave him a free pass to further obstruct justice.

So it begs the question: why try to compromise?

Is there a point in which compromise only hurts you? Is there a time when it is preferred to
accept the game of chicken?

The problem is the Republican ideology has changed from

sensible agreement to obstinate confrontation: and for over a decade it has worked. This was a chief strategy of the Gingrich/Delay Republican Party and has shown to be of great use to the Bush administration. The reality of the situation is that is works for them, so they will keep doing it.

So what can the Democrats do to create a more compromising
Congress? Should they even try?

The ideology of win-at-all-costs loses as an ideology when it stops working. Not only handing them losses, but forcing gridlock on their most important issues (preventing them from winning), and forcing them to vote against their own legislation because of their unwillingness to compromise. These strategies, when combined together will certainly force their hand. Then there is always the option of using the law as it is intended.

Impeaching the President and Vice President or pursuing them for war crimes, murder, and felony eavesdropping once they leave office serveas both the legal repercussions of their actions and discourage future bad behaviors.

The FISA compromise serves as a perfect example of folding before the President, blinking when you should be standing firm. I get Sen. Obama’s position and the position of other Democrats that see putting FISA back in place as more important than immunity, but what is being ignored is that this president will ignore the law anyway. Making FISA the rule of the land again is not as important as making the president act a certain way. He broke the law before, he’ll break it now; but making him a repeat law-breaker is not as important as curtailing the action in the first place. Secondly, Sen. John McCain has taken Bush’s stance on nearly everything, but especially on matters of “intelligence”. Putting this law back in place in expectation of the next president abiding by it is not terribly important when a potential Pres. McCain would ignore it anyway (and Democrats refuse to raise impeachment proceedings). Even a wider Democratic majority is just as unlikelyto go after McCain for breaking the law as they have been with Still President Bush.

Compromise, as a concept is impossible in such an arrangement. In this case, as in every
important case of the last 7 years, the Democrats have folded. They blinked. They cried “uncle”. They showed the world that they are willing to let a school-yard bully beat them up and take their lunch money. And then do it again. And again. Then they let another bully beat them up, again and again. Then they hand over the money without a fight—worried that the bad press will hurt them more—or that it will make Bush look bad. Since when has public opinion prevented Pres. Bush from doing anything?

Compromise is still a pretty good concept. Especially when it is a tool to help us get to yes. Compromising your values in the face of tyranny isn’t.

So what do we do?