FA+
Shop
The Lost Art of Compromise?
13 years ago
First off, I'd like to apologize for going off the radar for so long. I'm presently in grad school, but that doesn't necessarily mean I've been creatively idle, either... I just haven't produced anything that I feel would be presentable or really rewarding here, and I'll admit that illustration has sort of fallen off my schedule and habits. I need to get back into it!
Anyway, that being said, I'd like to kick off the new year with yet another (hopefully) thought and insight-provoking journal! And by that, of course, I mean the actual, subconscious purpose of any journal: The reinforcement of the Self by shouting into humanity.
People constantly talk about compromise, usually in the context that it has somehow become lost or been led astray, or misplaced by the housekeeping staff. Maybe the dog ate it. We all seem to be in a desperate search for compromise as a society to the point where compromise itself has become the object of our dreams, the ideal, the way to overcome all the dire portent looming before us. Of course, like the nearsighted person searching incessantly for a pair of glasses that they are already wearing, compromise hasn't actually left us. We've just managed to trick ourselves into thinking that it's somehow gone missing.
Speaking from the perspective of an American, this compromise thing and it's apparent absence is kind of a thing right now. It's in fashion. People are talking about it, about how they miss it, and even permitting themselves to believe that it will never return. There is even a cottage industry focused around the search for the missing compromise- it's in the news, thereby selling advertisements and generating revenue for someone, somewhere, presumably. Because it's in the news so regularly, it becomes a nice little bit of cash on the side for psychologists, pundits, and those mysterious floating head people who, while disembodied, find great enjoyment out of placing themselves on book covers as though the presence of their beaming faces will sell hardcovers-- and they're right! Or, at least, I think such books must sell, cause I see them in just about every bookstore and I refuse to believe that there is some giant Chinese surplus book-buying factory complex that mulches them into a pulp and recycles them into arsenic-infused toilet tissue that forms the sole economic basis for the trendy book industry.
The question that is invariably being asked is 'where has all the compromise gone?' The answers furnished try to answer this question, and the answers aren't baseless. Some say that the polarization of the electorate is the foundation upon which the polarized Congress is currently built, a vast sea of Gerrymandered congressional districts from sea to shining sea, each one pandering to a clique of wingnuts. Others say that this is a cultural problem and a sort of collective illness based upon generations of grown up babies who have yet to be weaned from entitlements, an entire nation of children incapable of dealing with confrontation in any format other than throwing a tantrum. Most of the answers to this question paint one side or the other of this polarized nation as something childish, if not subhuman-- In the process of trying to answer this question, we have collectively been reduced to an unthinking, irrational force of nature that cannot be refuted. In other words, the compromise is gone now and there's no way to bring it back, as any individual attempt to do so will be swept away by the tidal wave of 'stupid people'.
Of course, this all supposes that everyone is asking the right question to begin with. Anyone familiar with Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has to chuckle a bit at this part, cause they've heard it before. To those who aren't familiar, a hyperintelligent race with access to vast resources builds an extraordinary computer called Deep Thought to answer the question: "What is the secret to life, the universe, and everything?" After millions of years, Deep Thought produces an answer that is both underwhelming and unbelievably disappointing, but chastises its creators by telling them that they should have asked a different question if they wanted a better answer.
First off, if it's not clear by now, compromise never 'left the building' hot on the heels of Elvis. It couldn't leave us even if it wanted to. Supposing again that most democratically elected governments are staffed by human beings and not brain-devouring Dyson vacuum space alien people in disguise, it is also safe to say that compromise is still with us as a primordial part of our psychology. Has our ability to compromise suddenly shriveled up into a laughable cerebral vestige, like T-Rex arms for our mind? No! It's alive and well, and in everyday use. How can I prove this? Anyone who's had to settle for something inferior to what they wanted, but sufficient to meet their basic need threshold, has engaged in compromise-- which is everyone, by the way, down to infants.
Whew. Now that that's out of the way, we can look at the next problem. If compromise is alive and well, why is it treating us so poorly right now? This, I think, is where psychology starts to work against us. Our brains are familiar with compromise- but we don't like to think of it as an ideal. By definition, a compromise is ideal for no one... Yet we are examining it as an ideal solution. This, in my opinion, is precisely the problem our government is butting heads with time and again. Both sides of the political ideology agree- compromise is necessary, vital even, to confronting the major problems facing us. Excellent, now let's get compromising! Sounds great! Wait... you mean I have to give all this up? Hold on, now, I said we should compromise, not bend over, drop our drawers, and hand you the Vaseline!
Guess what. Compromise isn't easy, and even though we think we know how to do it, everyone's got their own idea on how to compromise. The most common and ancient method of compromise is the good old Bargain. For a bargain to work, both parties have to hold something that the other values, and both sides will try to obtain the highest gains possible with the least cost. Pretty basic stuff, right?
Plus, it's not like things can't be bargained in the United States. True, we don't haggle over a head of lettuce or a T-shirt except in the most informal markets, but when it comes to major purchases and deals bargaining happens all the time. Politicians are also familiar with bargaining processes- hell, we specifically put them up their to bargain for the best outcome they can get for our constituencies. Every time Congress arrives at loggerheads, a flurry of bargaining begins. Yet right now, it seems, the mechanisms of bargaining aren't working.
Senators, Congressmen, and the U.S. President himself are all elected to satisfy promises. For Senators and the President, these promises can be pretty broad and flexible, primarily because the constituencies that elect them are (surprise!) broad and flexible. They have enough prestige and power to fall short in some areas and still emerge with a political career.
Congressmen do not have that luxury.
Congressmen in the U.S. have two-year terms, a short mandate by most standards. A surprising number of congressmen and women are not independently wealthy, and their ability to fund a campaign is limited. They can't spread money around everywhere and make all kinds of promises to all kinds of people. Even with generous support from their political party, a Congressperson cannot overwhelm all local opposition with money alone. They cannot ignore the promises they make to their constituents and expect to make a career out of politics. What kind of promises can individual congresspeople make to cement their careers? Generally, it is some kind of federally funded job-generating mechanism-- roads, military bases, prisons, etc.
A Congressman or woman places extreme value on one or two things that usually soak up federal dollars. To lose these things is to lose their careers. To the President, it seems obvious- to cut spending, we need to stop building bridges to nowhere and get rid of shipyards in Utah. To senators, it seems obvious- these projects are a waste of money, and losing the jobs and public support from one or two won't get me kicked out of office. To congressmen and women, however, this bridge to nowhere or this useless shipyard is a vital lynchpin for re-election, and the only way to bargain with such a thing is to replace it with another money sink of more or less equal value.
This cuts to the heart of why compromise isn't working on matters of federal spending, and the intractability of these fights is rubbing off in other areas, painting politicians and even entire parties as being irrational, impossible to work with. The word 'compromise' starts getting thrown around- as an ideal, yes, but also a weapon. It becomes a word that people identify with themselves as a sign of thoughtfulness, understanding, justice, peace, and superior morality-- and people without this ability to compromise, of course, are portrayed as lacking all of those qualities. Compromise becomes the shining beacon of awesomesauce to which all must aspire. Those standing in the way of compromise are irritating social lemmings fixated on suicide. The compromise must hold- clearly. It is what must be done, right?
Wrong. Cue Admiral Akbar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVnArp9ZE0
Compromise is not the end all, be all objective of politics- not in America, not anywhere. Compromise, by its very nature, is actually pretty disappointing. Never mind that compromise is mediocrity- it's that the human psychology doesn't like to feel like it's losing all the time, or at least engaging in counterproductive activity.
Perhaps, then, what we should be asking of our government right now is not so much what to cut, but how to better spend the same amount of money. We spend a lot of money on prisons, but prisons neither enrich nor grow communities or the nation. We spend a lot of money on road infrastructure when we already know that larger investments in freight infrastructure pay higher dividends than building new roads and lanes every which way. We spend a lot of money on military bases with little or no strategic value when the same money could be spent in the same constituency on actual productive activities. We spend a lot of money on massive schools that unfailingly transform children into statistics and, provided they don't run away, do not teach them how to survive. This is an entrepreneurial nation. People will understand, and maybe even applaud if more dollars are put to work instead of simply sitting around.
Of course, all of this is easier said than done, but it's a start, isn't it? The majority of American voters (and a lot of nonvoters) will put in the hours if it means that they don't feel impotent and hopeless about their future. Politicians would be well served, believe it or not, by abandoning the dream of compromise and converting existing federal funding into production and/or development. It's less like compromise and more like gambling, and while it carries its own serious risks I think it is much more hopeful and effective than asking Congressmen and women to basically sacrifice their political careers, something that they quite understandably will vote against time and time again.
Then again, this could all be nonsense. What do you think?
Anyway, that being said, I'd like to kick off the new year with yet another (hopefully) thought and insight-provoking journal! And by that, of course, I mean the actual, subconscious purpose of any journal: The reinforcement of the Self by shouting into humanity.
People constantly talk about compromise, usually in the context that it has somehow become lost or been led astray, or misplaced by the housekeeping staff. Maybe the dog ate it. We all seem to be in a desperate search for compromise as a society to the point where compromise itself has become the object of our dreams, the ideal, the way to overcome all the dire portent looming before us. Of course, like the nearsighted person searching incessantly for a pair of glasses that they are already wearing, compromise hasn't actually left us. We've just managed to trick ourselves into thinking that it's somehow gone missing.
Speaking from the perspective of an American, this compromise thing and it's apparent absence is kind of a thing right now. It's in fashion. People are talking about it, about how they miss it, and even permitting themselves to believe that it will never return. There is even a cottage industry focused around the search for the missing compromise- it's in the news, thereby selling advertisements and generating revenue for someone, somewhere, presumably. Because it's in the news so regularly, it becomes a nice little bit of cash on the side for psychologists, pundits, and those mysterious floating head people who, while disembodied, find great enjoyment out of placing themselves on book covers as though the presence of their beaming faces will sell hardcovers-- and they're right! Or, at least, I think such books must sell, cause I see them in just about every bookstore and I refuse to believe that there is some giant Chinese surplus book-buying factory complex that mulches them into a pulp and recycles them into arsenic-infused toilet tissue that forms the sole economic basis for the trendy book industry.
The question that is invariably being asked is 'where has all the compromise gone?' The answers furnished try to answer this question, and the answers aren't baseless. Some say that the polarization of the electorate is the foundation upon which the polarized Congress is currently built, a vast sea of Gerrymandered congressional districts from sea to shining sea, each one pandering to a clique of wingnuts. Others say that this is a cultural problem and a sort of collective illness based upon generations of grown up babies who have yet to be weaned from entitlements, an entire nation of children incapable of dealing with confrontation in any format other than throwing a tantrum. Most of the answers to this question paint one side or the other of this polarized nation as something childish, if not subhuman-- In the process of trying to answer this question, we have collectively been reduced to an unthinking, irrational force of nature that cannot be refuted. In other words, the compromise is gone now and there's no way to bring it back, as any individual attempt to do so will be swept away by the tidal wave of 'stupid people'.
Of course, this all supposes that everyone is asking the right question to begin with. Anyone familiar with Douglas Adams and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has to chuckle a bit at this part, cause they've heard it before. To those who aren't familiar, a hyperintelligent race with access to vast resources builds an extraordinary computer called Deep Thought to answer the question: "What is the secret to life, the universe, and everything?" After millions of years, Deep Thought produces an answer that is both underwhelming and unbelievably disappointing, but chastises its creators by telling them that they should have asked a different question if they wanted a better answer.
First off, if it's not clear by now, compromise never 'left the building' hot on the heels of Elvis. It couldn't leave us even if it wanted to. Supposing again that most democratically elected governments are staffed by human beings and not brain-devouring Dyson vacuum space alien people in disguise, it is also safe to say that compromise is still with us as a primordial part of our psychology. Has our ability to compromise suddenly shriveled up into a laughable cerebral vestige, like T-Rex arms for our mind? No! It's alive and well, and in everyday use. How can I prove this? Anyone who's had to settle for something inferior to what they wanted, but sufficient to meet their basic need threshold, has engaged in compromise-- which is everyone, by the way, down to infants.
Whew. Now that that's out of the way, we can look at the next problem. If compromise is alive and well, why is it treating us so poorly right now? This, I think, is where psychology starts to work against us. Our brains are familiar with compromise- but we don't like to think of it as an ideal. By definition, a compromise is ideal for no one... Yet we are examining it as an ideal solution. This, in my opinion, is precisely the problem our government is butting heads with time and again. Both sides of the political ideology agree- compromise is necessary, vital even, to confronting the major problems facing us. Excellent, now let's get compromising! Sounds great! Wait... you mean I have to give all this up? Hold on, now, I said we should compromise, not bend over, drop our drawers, and hand you the Vaseline!
Guess what. Compromise isn't easy, and even though we think we know how to do it, everyone's got their own idea on how to compromise. The most common and ancient method of compromise is the good old Bargain. For a bargain to work, both parties have to hold something that the other values, and both sides will try to obtain the highest gains possible with the least cost. Pretty basic stuff, right?
Plus, it's not like things can't be bargained in the United States. True, we don't haggle over a head of lettuce or a T-shirt except in the most informal markets, but when it comes to major purchases and deals bargaining happens all the time. Politicians are also familiar with bargaining processes- hell, we specifically put them up their to bargain for the best outcome they can get for our constituencies. Every time Congress arrives at loggerheads, a flurry of bargaining begins. Yet right now, it seems, the mechanisms of bargaining aren't working.
Senators, Congressmen, and the U.S. President himself are all elected to satisfy promises. For Senators and the President, these promises can be pretty broad and flexible, primarily because the constituencies that elect them are (surprise!) broad and flexible. They have enough prestige and power to fall short in some areas and still emerge with a political career.
Congressmen do not have that luxury.
Congressmen in the U.S. have two-year terms, a short mandate by most standards. A surprising number of congressmen and women are not independently wealthy, and their ability to fund a campaign is limited. They can't spread money around everywhere and make all kinds of promises to all kinds of people. Even with generous support from their political party, a Congressperson cannot overwhelm all local opposition with money alone. They cannot ignore the promises they make to their constituents and expect to make a career out of politics. What kind of promises can individual congresspeople make to cement their careers? Generally, it is some kind of federally funded job-generating mechanism-- roads, military bases, prisons, etc.
A Congressman or woman places extreme value on one or two things that usually soak up federal dollars. To lose these things is to lose their careers. To the President, it seems obvious- to cut spending, we need to stop building bridges to nowhere and get rid of shipyards in Utah. To senators, it seems obvious- these projects are a waste of money, and losing the jobs and public support from one or two won't get me kicked out of office. To congressmen and women, however, this bridge to nowhere or this useless shipyard is a vital lynchpin for re-election, and the only way to bargain with such a thing is to replace it with another money sink of more or less equal value.
This cuts to the heart of why compromise isn't working on matters of federal spending, and the intractability of these fights is rubbing off in other areas, painting politicians and even entire parties as being irrational, impossible to work with. The word 'compromise' starts getting thrown around- as an ideal, yes, but also a weapon. It becomes a word that people identify with themselves as a sign of thoughtfulness, understanding, justice, peace, and superior morality-- and people without this ability to compromise, of course, are portrayed as lacking all of those qualities. Compromise becomes the shining beacon of awesomesauce to which all must aspire. Those standing in the way of compromise are irritating social lemmings fixated on suicide. The compromise must hold- clearly. It is what must be done, right?
Wrong. Cue Admiral Akbar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVnArp9ZE0
Compromise is not the end all, be all objective of politics- not in America, not anywhere. Compromise, by its very nature, is actually pretty disappointing. Never mind that compromise is mediocrity- it's that the human psychology doesn't like to feel like it's losing all the time, or at least engaging in counterproductive activity.
Perhaps, then, what we should be asking of our government right now is not so much what to cut, but how to better spend the same amount of money. We spend a lot of money on prisons, but prisons neither enrich nor grow communities or the nation. We spend a lot of money on road infrastructure when we already know that larger investments in freight infrastructure pay higher dividends than building new roads and lanes every which way. We spend a lot of money on military bases with little or no strategic value when the same money could be spent in the same constituency on actual productive activities. We spend a lot of money on massive schools that unfailingly transform children into statistics and, provided they don't run away, do not teach them how to survive. This is an entrepreneurial nation. People will understand, and maybe even applaud if more dollars are put to work instead of simply sitting around.
Of course, all of this is easier said than done, but it's a start, isn't it? The majority of American voters (and a lot of nonvoters) will put in the hours if it means that they don't feel impotent and hopeless about their future. Politicians would be well served, believe it or not, by abandoning the dream of compromise and converting existing federal funding into production and/or development. It's less like compromise and more like gambling, and while it carries its own serious risks I think it is much more hopeful and effective than asking Congressmen and women to basically sacrifice their political careers, something that they quite understandably will vote against time and time again.
Then again, this could all be nonsense. What do you think?
Unfortunately, in my experience with other people, the getting back into it will never happen. Once you're done with college you'll start working, then a girlfriend (or boyfriend), more disposable income means going out and doing fun stuff on your free time rather than sitting drawing, more and more responsibilities get piled on as you get older, and eventually drawing for fun is a distant memory. The only people I know who kept up personal artwork after graduating are the completely insane, driven workaholics, people with absolutely no social life, or someone supported by a spouse (or parents, or an inheritance) so they don't need to work.
(For the record, I fall under the 'insane' category, with a bit of 'no social life.')
And they will put in the hours to do what exactly? I have to fundamentally disagree with what you're saying here; I think that there is a very serious drifting apart in cultural beliefs at play here. It isn't just on the comments section on Huffington Post, CNN, Fox, or (god forbid) WorldNetDaily. Just talking with rural relatives and friends at uni (in my experience), confirms a lot of the worst assumptions that both sides make of each other.
Rural, overwhelmingly conservative Americans see a fundamentally different vision of American than urban, college educated liberal Americans. Both factions find reasons to despise and hate each other the way flies make their way onto horse poop. The thing is, ask any American how they would 'put in the hours' to set the country on the right course (or maintain its course, whichever), you will get some pretty unworkable, and contradictory ideas that simply are far apart to be put to work through compromise. That the supposedly routine act of getting a budget has now become a political game of chicken really shows a significant level of dysfunction within the legislative branch which is entrusted to be able to make compromises at least of such a routine act. Again, there is the issue as to what the hell we do to fix our problems.
Many constituencies will demand that that build more prisons, and probably enact more fear driven legislation that will incarcerate and (render unemployable and thus requiring pricy government assistance to survive!) a greater percentage of the population. This is less a political problem imo, but more of a cultural one where people quite frankly don't know whats good for them. Just looking at the irrational mudslinging and name calling after the Newton shooting makes me very pessimistic frankly.
Worse still, Americans are largely apathetic in terms of action. Power seems to rest in mostly persons in the 40-70 age cohort... people who have outdated notions as to how the country works, and many quite frankly are exhibiting mass clinical senility. Most young people don't trust the system... and are geared towards looking for ways to game it in order to 'get ahead.' So, the debate is largely in the hands of relative extremists, the majority are geared towards getting something for themselves and won't do be too alarmed at the lack of compromise in the governments cog wheels... it is to be expected. Again, they can't get a budget passed, how are they supposed to handle the tsunami of retirees that will need their kidney dialysis paid for?
In my opinion, people are at their weakest when they convince themselves that nothing can be done.
On an economic issue that to me stands like a huge shadow over all of this: if the software/robotic automation and outsourcing takes away as many jobs as the giddy technophiles out there want them too then we are totally finished, and there will be nowhere to run.
Our government can't even fix a budget for chrissake. I don't see any reason for history to be special to us in preventing a slow, cruel decline.
Not to invoke Godwin's law so early in the discussion (I'm only trying to introduce a radical example for the sake of illustration), but the correct answer to Hitler wanting to kill all of the Jews and others not wanting to kill any of the Jews was not to kill some of the Jews. Neither Hitler nor his opponents would be happy with this middle ground. Why? Different first principles-- foundational assumptions of right and wrong, conceptions of the way things should be.
A contrasting example would be a debate on where an allocation of spare school board funds go, where Group A wants all of the monies to go towards the athletic program and Group B wants to spend the cash on updating the school's computer lab. Eventually a compromise is agreed upon, where the athletic program gets to replace some (but not all) of their equipment, and the computer lab gets new computers but keeps the old monitors.
Ignoring the obvious differences of degree, what's the big difference here? Fundamental conceptions of what should and should not be done. The Nazis, broadly speaking, believed killing Jews was a good thing and letting them live was not. Others rightly believed the exact opposite. In the schoolboard example, though, neither party is arguing that it's fundamentally wrong for school funds to go to the athletics department or computer lab, respectively; the two groups just have different priorities.
Anywhere two negotiating parties have differing first principles, things start breaking down. Right now, in Congress we have two groups that don't agree on the fundamental things. One group believes in the power of expert administration and central planning (empowered by governmental force) while rejecting the idea of a fixed human nature and natural rights. The other group believes that human nature is basically fixed and that all men are "endowed with certain inalienable rights," and sees government as a force which is extremely capable but also extremely dangerous (and therefore limited and strictly controlled). It follows from this that one group is probably OK with significant government involvement in the economy, healthcare, etc. While total federal spending is an imperfect indicator of the scope of the government, a government that spends-- and therefore consumes-- more than $29,000 per person per year is probably more in accordance with one of the above-listed conceptions of government than the other. And so the budget fight actually becomes a fight on principles, which is why things don't move forward on that front. Until the nation and Congress share roughly the same first principles, expect more gridlock.
********************************************
In regard to your point on how we can better spend federal money, I like your thinking. But we're at the point where the federal budget is so ridiculously inflated that there really is no sensible alternative to cutting. Whack eight digits off the budget, treat it like a household's income, and this is what you get:
Annual income: $21,700
Annual outlays: $38,200
New debt for 2012 (money charged to the credit card, let's say): $16,500
Total debt (credit card balance): $142,710
And we're at or past the peak of the Laffer curve on the upper tax brackets, so even trying to raise taxes won't get us out of this.
That's my three cents*, anyways.
-GunRacer
*inflation-adjusted
As far as fundamental first principles go, they are important... but the way I see it, the fact that congresspeople rely on 'pork barrels' for continued political relevance is at the core of the issues. Also, I do agree on how you feel about compromise- it is a strategy to resolve conflicts, but it not THE strategy to dominate all others. Focusing on development makes more sense in that people don't lose their livelihoods, congresspeople don't lose their offices, and the nation is enriched overall- plus, federal funding turns into capital instead of stagnating. In theory.
Then again, you do make a point- we're in a situation now where spending cuts are pretty much inevitable. People are going to get burned. Constituencies, counties, and communities will probably wither up without funding. I can't really see a way out of this that doesn't involve some human tragedy, but I also see that many people are truly hungry for leadership and that they're ready to work. That has to be worth something. We have to at least give future generations a reason to forgive us.
But I digress.
As to your comments on pork, the reason I didn't say anything is because I'm in total agreement with you on that point. But I would like to say that some degree of "pork" is intrinsic to the federal government period, even back to the very first session of Congress. The simpler and smaller bills are, though, the harder it is to sneak in outrageous pork projects. It also helps when you restrict the role of Congress to its proper functions. Compare the NDAA (odious as some of its provisions are, it's still a national security/military type bill) to, say, the farm bill and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I'd agree with the idea that government spending should be spent well, and perhaps my mantra of "reduce spending" is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Still, though, I can't shake the feeling that this is like a guy who's up to his eyeballs in debt and is trying to get the absolute best deal on a pre-owned Lexus. He may get the most amazing deal on the planet and put his money to great use, but he's still purchasing the car with his almost-maxed-out credit card.
Yeah, cutting back will suck. A lot. But the measure of a man (and perhaps a country) isn't how well he successfully dodges responsibility and the inevitable. No, it's how well he faces the challenges ahead and overcomes them. The longer we wait, the worse it'll get.
As the Marines like to say, "pain is just weakness leaving the body."
So I say let's get it over with; we'll come out a stronger nation and a stronger people on the other side. I don't think future generations will have an easy time criticizing that.