What We Have Here is a
Failure to … Negotiate
My
feeds are full of items from activists advocating for various goals,
from electoral reform, vaccine “equity,” legal marijuana, police
reform, environmental protection, and so on. Most all of them are
variations on the line of “This is THE RIGHT THING TO DO” and
pretty much stop there. Since most of them are just asking for money
from people who already side with them, that's ok. As far as it goes.
But then they take that same stance into enunciating the policy into
real-world results... and wonder why they stall out miserably.
Let's
back up and look at their pitch: equity, justice, reform … THE
RIGHT THING TO DO. But no one – NO ONE – thinks they're the bad
guys. If you don't think you're the bad guy, you probably think you
are already doing the right thing. If the “other side” really
wants you to change your position, they have to do (at least) one of
two things: convince you are in the wrong, or make it worth your
while to accept their proposal.
Can
the other side be convinced they're wrong? Maybe. But there is a
reason why this is also know as the “Road to Damascus” moment, a
miraculous occurrence: it's awfully rare, and takes the equivalent of
divine intervention. I exaggerate, somewhat, for effect. You have
countervailing examples: Secretary of Defense Perry, formerly in
charge of the US nuclear weapons arsenal, who ten years after he left
office joined with former Secretaries of State Shultz (RIP) and
Kissinger, and former Senator Nunn to call for the US to take the
lead in reducing and abolishing those weapons.* The four became
convinced that under the changed circumstances of the end of the Cold
War, only a radical change in the US stance could enhance American
and global safety and security. But many Americans and much of the US
Senate is stuck in the past.
Some (many?) will object to the
other route - make it worth while to accept the proposal. That's …
“compromise.”
Even dictionary.com defines that as “to jeopardize,” and “to
make a dishonorable or shameful concession.” The urban dictionary
has in second place “In
marriage – an amiable arrangment between husband and wife whereby
they agree to let her have her own way.”
In fourth: “compromise is
when nobody gets what they wanted.” Sixth: An agreement between two
or more political parties in which one attempts to be reasonable and
the other agrees to whine until they get everything they want under
the pretense that the other party or parties are not, in fact
compromising.”
Let's skip over those to the top-rated entry
at urbandictionary.com: “A beautiful way to solve the issues and
problems through straight-forward conversation.”
How can we
use that definition to reach sufficient consensus to adopt policy
recommendations so as to change the real world around us? Oddly
enough, the answer is in the self-same social media channels. But not
the messages from advocates; rather, let's look at the ones trying to
literally sell us something, asking us to exchange our cash for what
they have on offer. They are trying to make it worth our while - to
send in our money – for what they want to sell. There's no good
guys, no bad guys – just: we each have something the other wants.
Compromise can be tricky; largely if the compromise is seen
as the final say in a matter, or is overbroad and unbalanced. Cf.
Misssouri Compromise of 1820, or the 1876 Rutherford-Tilden
Presidential election and the Compromise of 1877. Or, for you nuclear
disarmament fans, the Partial (or Limited) Test Ban Treaty of 1963,
whose follow-up, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (adopted 1996) has
never come into force.
All of this is complicated right now
in American politics by idiotic no compromise stances taken by both
parties, but particularly that initiated by Mitch McConnell after the
2008 election. It is not helped by the likes of Senator Gillibrand,
who voted against almost every nominee in the prior Administration –
apparently just to have a talking point in her (brutally)
unsuccessful 2020 Presidential campaign.
To end on a high
note: Two examples of succesful compromise in action. In 1990, coal
was used to generate 307 million kilowatts of electricity in the US,
42% of total production. In 2020, coal was down 30% to 218 million
kilowatts, less than 20% of total production. In 1990, renewables
(mainly hydro- ) generated 106 million kilowatts, more than doubling
in 2020 to 284 million kilowatts, with almost all the increase in
solar and wind. Where's the compromise? Solar and wind greatly
benefited from federal (and state) tax incentives, incentives renewed
by bipartisan compromise in the December 2020 COVID relief bill. And
one I had a hand in: In 2006, the Government of Montenegro called for
a referendum on independence from Serbia. Initially, the conditions
for the referendum to be valid were unclear, as to the question to be
asked, the margin of victory needed to seceed, and other related
issues. Indepedence supporters wanted a threshold of 40%; State
Unionists advocated 66.67%. A compromise threshold of 55% “Yes”
to seceed was proposed by interested members of the International
Community, a position accepted unanimously by Montenegro's Parliament
– even though many MPs and their parties opposed dissolution of the
State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. The 55.5% “Yes” vote was
accepted by ALL concerned. A successful compromise.
* https://www.hoover.org/research/world-free-nuclear-weapons-0
