Compromise: The newest taboo in American politics – The Michigan Daily

At the bedrock of American democracy lies the principle of compromise. The ability to reach a fair agreement, despite differences in ideology and personal opinion, is what this country was built with. Political cooperation is necessary for the government to serve the greater good. The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of cooperation — especially early in the country’s history — and frequently compromised with one another. The delegates of the Constitutional Convention, themselves deeply divided, formed a “compromise committee” as they debated plans for the proposed Congress. In doing so, they ensured the creation of a long-lasting democratic republic. Even though compromise means each side gets less than they want (or believe they are entitled to), it is crucial to promoting productivity and meaningful success. Why, then, does it seem so rare today — a time when it may be needed most?

Over the past decade or so, both the American public and its political class have quickly turned away from the middle ground. Politicians have become more radical, while incentives for cooperation have suddenly waned. Political pandering designed to please niche bases creates more divisive politicians, who tend to garner greater media attention and stronger support by being the most chaotic in the room instead of the most productive.

Recent news has perfectly illustrated the unwillingness of elected officials to work together for the good of the American people. Last spring, then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., refused to put forth passable legislation to raise the debt ceiling, attempting to cause the U.S. to default on its debt and, in turn, destroying the full faith and credit of the nation. 

McCarthy, supported by his Republican Party colleagues in the House, chose to hold the American economy hostage rather than compromise. Republicans made it clear they would not raise the debt ceiling unless they made severe and extreme budget cuts. These cuts to discretionary programs — ranging from veterans’ healthcare to K-12 education — were met with strong condemnation by House Democrats. 

Although the bill ultimately passed, the last-minute negotiations and unreasonable Republican objection to the bill to raise the debt ceiling underscored the dangerous, growing view of compromise as a last-ditch effort.

Instances like this are becoming increasingly common in the U.S. legislative process. Both sides of the aisle fight over even the simplest of issues, revealing what seems to be a clash of pride, not ideology. This emerges , for example, when politicians heckle the president during his State of the Union address. There is no attempt to work out helpful solutions, but rather an effort to get potential sound bites for their die-hard supporters. The conflicting desires of each party make it nearly impossible for genuine negotiations to take place and steps toward common ground are seldom taken.

But even within the parties themselves, compromise is becoming more difficult. The Republican Party has struggled to contain its ultra-conservative faction, leading to messy disputes that delay the passage of important legislation and inhibit the government from functioning. McCarthy’s last-ditch effort to bargain with House Democrats to avoid a government shutdown upset U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and his extreme right-wing group, including former President Donald Trump. As a result, Gaetz, who embodies the very antithesis of compromise, recently succeeded in ousting McCarthy from the speaker’s chair in a historic move. 

Gaetz and seven other Republicans forced the unprecedented move to sow chaos and division in the House. Their resistance to negotiation with McCarthy and other House Republicans was undoubtedly intentional. It seems that to these Republicans , the media attention and campaign donations earned were far more valuable than keeping our government operational. To Gaetz, winning is apparently worth inflicting pain on the millions of federal employees who would not receive paychecks and their fellow Americans who rely on federal safety services.

To some, writing an article about compromise between politicians appears futile. Many may say that Congress has been broken for decades, and division is nothing new. Indeed, maintaining hope in such a disappointing environment is no easy task. But data tells us that Washington, D.C., has not always been this way, and that we must return to more unified times.

According to a Pew Research Center study, today’s Congress is far more ideologically polarized than it was 50 years ago. Now, there are only about 24 moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress, which starkly contrasts with the 160 serving in the early 1970s. The research shows that Republicans, on average, have become far more conservative than Democrats have become liberal, though both have considerably strayed from the center.  Trump may not have created this division, but he definitely exacerbated it. His unusual and abhorrent behavior has given rise to other deeply partisan characters such as Gaetz, U.S. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., all of whom have become the faces of extremely conservative, no compromise, damn-the-consequences politics.

An increasingly polarized political world has led to a similar split among the American electorate. Pew Research Center found that the American public is the most divided in the world, with nearly 90% of Americans admitting they view conflict between differing political parties.

Even college students, once staunch defenders of free speech and the exchange of ideas, have reversed course. A recent Buckley Institute survey found that for the first time, more college students (46%) support shutting down opposing voices than not. Moreover, the survey found a majority of college students support speech codes on campus. An unwillingness to hear opposing positions or critically analyze one’s own opinions fuels division and undermines the very framework of compromise. This is a frightening trend that begs the question: How can we expect our politicians to come together when we are just as reluctant? 

To combat this refusal to work with one another, the U.S. must remember its founding ideals. To maintain a healthy and thriving democracy, there must be a sustained promotion and appreciation of the marketplace of ideas this country so proudly created. America must once again encourage diverse opinions and ideas. We can start by considering other points of view. Displaying empathy and attempting to understand differing beliefs will bring us closer to compromise. 

In turn, the government will function more effectively and politicians will be held accountable for their actions. If the American people become more open to compromise, our public officials should follow suit. One should never stop challenging their own beliefs and seeking to learn from those with contrasting beliefs because, as former President Abraham Lincoln warned, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Compromise is crucial for the success of any country, and it can no longer be treated like a dirty word in American politics and society.

Zach Ajluni is an Opinion Columnist who can be reached at zajluni@umich.edu.

Related articles