“Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another -- too often ending in the loss of both.” – Tryon Edwards, American theologian and grandson of Jonathan Edwards
A recent survey by Public Agenda revealed that over the past four years there has been a decline in support for political compromise on controversial issues, particularly among Catholics, evangelicals, and those who attend church services on a weekly basis. Not everyone, though, believes that sticking to one's convictions is laudable. William Raspberry, columnist for the Washington Post views this as cause for concern. According to Raspberry, refusing to retreat from “core values and beliefs" is acceptable when it comes to personal behavior but “could spell serious discord when extended to legislation or government policy.”
What Rasperry and other who think that compromise should be a bedrock principle of politics fail to recognize is that political philosophies can often be completely incompatible. Instead of exemplifying the wisdom of Solomon, compromise often produces results that resemble a creation of Dr. Frankenstein.
Imagine, for example, if a policy combined the conservative emphasis on welfare reform, the liberal reliance on a government run social programs, and the libertarian position on the legalization of prostitution. What we might produce is a situation similar to the one in Germany where a 25-year-old waitress faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit for turning down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin.
Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.
The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.
When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.
"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."
How would the different political philosophies respond to this policy? Liberals often refuse to grant exemptions based on conscience when Catholic hospitals refuse to fund contraceptives or when pharmacists choose not to dispense morning-after pills. How then could they argue that personal morality is a legitimate reason for not taking a job as a prostitute?
And libertarians, a group that tends to favor ideologically pure ideals over workable policy solutions, would have a difficult time explaining how the freedom to sell one’s body could be legitimized while protecting from it being used coercively. Conservatives can at least claim that they would have never supported legalizing prostitution nor refused to provide an exemption based on moral concerns.
So what would Raspberry do in a situation like this which pits personal morality against political compromise? Would he be satisfied with denying unemployment benefits to women who refused to accept work in the world’s oldest profession? Or would he think that – unlike abortion and gay marriage – this is an issue that we should refuse to compromise on?
In a representative democracy like ours, compromise is often a necessity. But we should recognize that it can lead, as Edwards noted, to the abandonment of human rights. Comprise certainly has a legitimate place in politics. But it can never be a substitute for a coherent and consistent political philosophy.
(HT: Gerry Phelps who notes that this is just another example of how much smarter Europeans are than Americans.)
2
Shari,
i thought the us was a republic
Yes, the U.S. is a Republican democracy. But since "Republic" can refer to any number of government forms taht aren't monarchies, it's sometimes useful to point out that we are a representative form of Republican democracy.
posted on 01.31.2005 1:22 AM3
How would the different political philosophies respond to this policy? Liberals often refuse to grant exemptions based on conscience when Catholic hospitals refuse to fund contraceptives or when pharmacists choose not to dispense morning-after pills. How then could they argue that personal morality is a legitimate reason for not taking a job as a prostitute?
They 'often refuse'???? I've never heard of a doctor diciplined because he refused to perform abortions. I suppose there might be some stories about morning after pills and pharamacits but in general I don't think liberals would object to an exemption based on one's religious or moral beliefs provided they are somewhat reasonable. I recall Mike Dukakasis got beat up pretty badly by Bush Sr. because he supported an exemption for the Pledge of Alligence for those who have religious beliefs forbidding them to make pledges.
On the flip side, I recall the Catholic Church going ballistic on welfare reform in NJ. The reform was that welfare checks would no longer be increased when the woman had additional children after she had entered the welfare rolls. Their argument was that this would make it cheaper for a woman to have an abortion rather than carry her to term.
posted on 01.31.2005 11:25 AM4
Not everyone, though, believes that sticking to one's convictions is laudable.Tripe, and a cheap attack at that. The reason compromise comes up so often is because it's almost always necessary. Generally speaking, the result of taking a hardline all-or-nothing approach is that you virtually always wind up with nothing. Willingness to make compromises doesn't mean giving up on your convictions, it just means acknowledging that you'll have an easier time achieving your goals incrementally than you will trying to get everyone to swallow them whole.
What Rasperry and other who think that compromise should be a bedrock principle of politics fail to recognize is that political philosophies can often be completely incompatible.And yet we still all have to live together, don't we? This is precisely why compromise is so important. We'll never agree on everything, but that doesn't mean that we can't find a good deal of common ground and (at least temporarily) agree to disagree on everything else.
For what it's worth, the Middle East is filled with groups who "stick to their convictions" without any willingness to compromise. How has that worked out?
posted on 01.31.2005 11:35 AM5
Joe writes: "And libertarians, a group that tends to favor ideologically pure ideals over workable policy solutions, would have a difficult time explaining how the freedom to sell one’s body could be legitimized while protecting from it being used coercively."
Ideologically, wouldn't a libertarian refuse government welfare in the first place?
posted on 01.31.2005 11:50 AM6
Rasberry and his leftist fellow travelers are hypocrites of the first order. In 1973 abortion was illegal in all states by state law. The baby killers only needed to elect state governments that would change those laws. But since a majority of the electorate would not go along with them in even one state, they used the nuclear option of getting 7 evil men to break their oaths to upold the constitution, invent new law from the bench and subvert the will of the entire electorate. This was not incremental politics. This was not compromise. This was traitorous judicial activism.
Now all you leftists who think compromise is the way to go, please help W appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. Over turn Roe and send it back to the states for the electorate to find common ground as each state sees fit. Ha! When pigs fly! Compromise with leftists is you changing your position to suit them.
7
" In 1973 abortion was illegal in all states by state law. "
False. Since RA get's so emotional about this you'd think he'd at least get his facts straight.
8
Hmm...this is really interesting, Joe. I will try to think about this one.
posted on 01.31.2005 3:52 PM9
Well, there goes another urban legend...hey Joe, have you looked up the German constitution?
Looks like, despite the quotes contained in your article, that the woman has a case given ARticles 1, 2, 4, and 5 of their constitution.
Thanks again...
posted on 01.31.2005 5:24 PM10
mumon:
have you seen everyone carrying the same article? http://news.google.com/news?q=german+prostitution&num=50&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&sa=G&scoring=d
Besides, liberals are notorious for reading consititutions to suit the times, as "living breathing" documents. She might have a case, but just as easily German jurisprudence may decide it isn't one worth it's salt, as they have done so far.
11
brandon:
Liberals are, if anything, about civil liberties. It's the conservatives that are agaist them.
posted on 02.01.2005 10:38 AM12
Dear Boonton; A rather typical example of a leftist picking a small point and disregarding the main thought. The vast majority of states in 1973 had laws against abortion. There was no compromise. Just the iron fist of the baby killing left. It is time the iron fist of democracy falls on you genocidal criminals.
posted on 02.01.2005 3:41 PM