Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Give and take

Perhaps Dr. Dre puts it best when he sings, “What’s the difference between me and you? You talk a good one but you don’t do what you’re supposed to do.” This refrain gets repeated in many different capacities. Most notably, political opponents always criticize one another for being “all talk, no action,” and the trend more than continued in this election and primary cycle.

In light of that, many prefer having elected officials or hired representatives that are principled to a fault, unwilling tostray from their beliefs in the spirit of compromise. As a result, some representatives pointlessly argue for their own values, then if it does not result in anything meaningful, pat themselves on the back for not “selling out” their opinions.

It is such a mentality that often manifests what people hate most about politics, or more accurately, bureaucracy: nothing can get done with this mindset. People need to compromise. Without compromise, nothing works as it should.

If we consider a world without compromise, particularly for the most contentious issues we would reasonably expect gridlock in government. With neither side conceding an inch, no headway can be expected, yet each side can walk away feeling proud that they did not abandon their principles.

Suppose one extreme had a slight majority — enough to get a vote passed, for example. Without the need to compromise, the vote that passes will be perfect for the majority but utterly appalling for the slight minority. It reminds me of the idiom that great strides should not be taken through slight majorities.

The value of compromise lies not only in getting more results, but also in producing more meaningful discourse. So often, it seems as though people cannot be convinced of anything, that their views are their views and nothing can change them. But if those same people found themselves in a room full of others with opposing viewpoints, where they had to defend their opinions and were given the opportunity to challenge those of others, at worst, everyone would leave the room better informed and more understanding.

And Americans are starting to re-realize the importance of compromise and meaningful dialogue. One Wall Street Journal poll suggested that, as of 2014, the ability to compromise was becoming an increasingly important criterion in a person’s assessment of a political leader. That fact led to a drop in the favorability of the Tea Party, a political party based on maintaining conservative values at all costs.

But there is no follow-up poll that reflects present-day attitudes, and the meteoric rise of Donald Trump throughout this past year says a lot about many Americans’ perspectives. Trump claims to be a champion of the downtrodden, and although he is sometimes made to face facts, he is utterly uncompromising when it comes to a great many of his proposals. Despite social backlash, concerns about efficacy, and pragmatic questions over its practicality, Trump stands by his border wall plan and maintains a substantial following.

This suggests that there is still a group of Americans that values what they would call "value-based politics.” One of Trump’s main issues with Hillary Clinton is that she is a Washington insider who will do whatever it takes to get ahead politically, not a politician with iron-clad beliefs.

The principal positive element of compromise is that oftentimes it would be impossible to reach decisions without it. Yet even when a decision-making majority could theoretically be formed without compromise, its possibility still promotes intelligent discourse. We do not need any more people trying to be “true” beacons of liberalism or conservatism because their beliefs are often held for the sole purpose of representing a cause, not representing that particular belief. Since all issues worth discussing are not black and white, more nuance in discussions can never be seen as a bad thing.

The way to fix “talk[ing] a good one but [not doing] what [we’re] supposed to do,” is not to blame the people preventing us from doing what we’re supposed to do, but to talk less of a good one. We should embrace the idea that we will likely need to compromise. So take less of a lofty “holier-than-thou” stance and make an honest attempt to find common ground with those across the aisle or debate stage or dining room table, and we will all be surprised at what we can accomplish.

Tom Salama is a freshman from Bayonne, New Jersey USA. He can be reached at tsalama@princeton.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT