Advocates are better off seeking common ground than compromise.
A good compromise is one that creates a shared outcome. The assumption of compromise is that both sides have to give a little to get a little. This works in relationships because in a successful marriage there isn’t a victor and a vanquished but rather people who have to figure out how to succeed together. The reward for successful compromise is the continuation of the relationship itself.
Common ground is different; the assumption is that the parties find a new, uncontested, thing on which to agree. This holds open the possibility of compromise or conflict later, and doesn’t require either person to give anything up.
In our system elections are not relationships, they are conflicts. Elections have a victor and a vanquished (and voters often feel like victims). Elected officials who give something up for a shared gain face opponents and voters who demand full fealty to a position; a greater general gain can result in a specific electoral loss – that itself can result in an undoing of the original deal.
An additional electoral challenge to compromise (and common ground) results from the zero-sum nature of elections. If a deal is struck that is good, someone will try to take the credit; if the deal appears bad there will be attempts to assign blame. In elections, someone wins and someone loses.
These challenges are playing out in the health care reform and jobs debates in Washington. Everyone wants to get something done – no one thinks that the jobless rate is okay or that the health care system is in fine shape – but everyone also faces an electoral need to be seen to have won the solution. Republicans want to fix what’s broken and be able to say they are the ones who made it happen and should thus be rewarded in November. Democrats have the same goal, as does the President. Wins cannot be shared. To argue that politics should be otherwise misses the point that politics is political – in our system people win and people lose.
Seen in this light, advocates are better off seeking common ground, a shared political space from which elected officials can later disagree. For example, those who believe taxes should be cut and those who want to expand social services can find common ground on balancing the budget first; without a balanced budget taxes can’t be cut and more money can’t be spent on social programs. Those who support and oppose capital punishment can find common ground in doing all they can to prevent the execution of the innocent; that may result in a fool-proof death penalty system that is above challenge or it may result in the withering away of capital punishment, either way fewer people get executed (the latter outcome has proven to be the case). The careful selection of common ground can create a policy win for advocates while the plea for compromise rarely does.
