Senior English major
Compromise is a word politicians tout often, but it doesn’t seem to actually mean anything in today’s political climate. Just take a look at the past few years and Congress’ inability to agree on almost any social or economic issue.
Gen. Colin Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State, also happens to agree with this assessment. He spoke at a Hewlett-Packard Co. government summit April 2 and discussed how the Founding Fathers compromised on slavery because they didn’t agree on the matter but had to make a decision. Even though some thought slavery should be perpetuated and some thought it should end, they knew it was more important to agree on the tenets of democracy. And Powell said that even though the compromise was deplorable, he is OK that the Founding Fathers established it because they couldn’t let a contentious issue prevent them from creating the Constitution.
The three-fifths compromise, which established each slave would count for three-fifths of a person when determining congressional representation, came under sharp scrutiny during the Civil War, as it should have. That was the time America took to readdress the problem that had been pushed back with the compromise. But that’s the whole point — the issue was addressed later; years of democracy came out of the Founding Fathers’ decisions in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Don’t get me wrong — in no way do I mean to endorse the years of suffering so many people endured because the Founding Fathers didn’t abolish slavery. Slavery in all forms is appalling.
But there’s something to be said for the idea of compromising in politics. The three-fifths compromise, despite its horrific moral nature, allowed the country’s independence and democracy to be established. Wouldn’t it make sense for politicians today to use such cooperation as an example for how to handle controversial issues?
On some of the most polarizing issues, many politicians are unyielding in their opinions. This especially shows during the political campaign process. But instead of campaigning further from the middle, politicians should strive to encourage Americans to want more compromise. That’s not to say members of government don’t know how to compromise. They should just do it more frequently.
Take the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Regardless of how you feel about the policy, there have been drastic compromises from both sides to pass it into law. Yes, the ideas have been greatly diluted. But the point is, the change — people receiving health care who weren’t able to before — was implemented. Sure, not all of the benefits originally intended to be included made their way through. And of course, a number of aspects of the original bill passed. But that is the nature of compromise. Not everyone gets everything he or she wants, but everyone can live with the decisions made — at least until the issue arises again.
That’s the idea behind earmarks to bills as well. It’s the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” idea: I’ll vote for your bill as long as you add this stipulation to appease my constituents. And even though this has allowed some questionable initiatives to slide under the radar, it seems like a reasonable price to pay to make change happen.
I know I’m just a college student whose opinion doesn’t really matter to those in Washington. But it’s cool to hear people such as Powell, whose opinions align with mine, make speeches reinforcing these points. He’s someone politicians might listen to, so it seems there’s hope.
Maria Romas is a senior English major. She can be reached at mromasdbk@gmail.com.
