Compromise is not a dirty word
Decades before he became the 41st President of the United State, George Herbert Walker Bush said that “When the word moderation becomes a dirty word we have some soul searching to do.”
The same could be said of compromise.
About five weeks ago I posted on this blog and on Facebook about Five tropes about Brexit which it is time to retire. I was seeking to illustrate a saying of the American economist Thomas Sowell -
- as it applies to Brexit.
Hence for example I argued that it is time for Leavers to stop calling Remainers unpatriotic (or even stronger insults along the same lines,) time for Remainers to stop calling Leavers racist, time for both sides to stop calling the other stupid, and generally time to stop using insults as a substitute for argument.
The point on which I knew I would have most trouble convincing people is that it's time to stop accusing any politician whose approach to Brexit you don't like of pursuing the interests of their party rather than their country.
It's a charge you hear every day and the majority of such accusation are complete and utter nonsense. Almost every time a politician has done anything on Brexit they have either inflicted reputational damage on their party, made it harder to manage, lost votes, or even made it more likely that their party will split. Even the politicians who I most disagree with on the subject are either totally insane or must genuinely believe that what they are arguing for is the right thing to do, because they're certainly not helping their parties or their reputations.
When I posted this on Facebook it prompted a number of responses from people I knew when we were all students. One of them doubled down on an attack he had made on the integrity of a particular group of politicians. To try to keep minds open as long as possible among people reading this, I'm not going to identify him at this stage or say who he was criticising.
Another of my friends from student days, Quentin Langley, made the suggestion that
" … part of the problem is that sometimes people are, indeed, self-interested, corrupt, stupid, or any number of other things.
Perhaps we should all have a policy of seeking to call out such people on our own side, while accepting we are not best placed to assess such things impartially with regard to those with whom we disagree."
Interestingly enough, the person who he was replying to came back with the words
"precisely what I feel I am doing!"
Which elicited a double take from me because he obviously didn't agree with those people now, but he would presumably would have justified this response because he had voted the same way in the referendum as the people whose integrity he was now attacking.
I have been thinking this point through and concluded that "Quentin's law" is generally right but the definition of "our own side" needs to be more fully defined.
Because there are times when compromise is essential or you end up with no decision or an outcome very few people want. A common example is the situations similar to that which currently exists in the British parliament in respect of Brexit, where there is no majority for any of about four possible outcomes.
The same could be said of compromise.
About five weeks ago I posted on this blog and on Facebook about Five tropes about Brexit which it is time to retire. I was seeking to illustrate a saying of the American economist Thomas Sowell -
- as it applies to Brexit.
Hence for example I argued that it is time for Leavers to stop calling Remainers unpatriotic (or even stronger insults along the same lines,) time for Remainers to stop calling Leavers racist, time for both sides to stop calling the other stupid, and generally time to stop using insults as a substitute for argument.
The point on which I knew I would have most trouble convincing people is that it's time to stop accusing any politician whose approach to Brexit you don't like of pursuing the interests of their party rather than their country.
It's a charge you hear every day and the majority of such accusation are complete and utter nonsense. Almost every time a politician has done anything on Brexit they have either inflicted reputational damage on their party, made it harder to manage, lost votes, or even made it more likely that their party will split. Even the politicians who I most disagree with on the subject are either totally insane or must genuinely believe that what they are arguing for is the right thing to do, because they're certainly not helping their parties or their reputations.
When I posted this on Facebook it prompted a number of responses from people I knew when we were all students. One of them doubled down on an attack he had made on the integrity of a particular group of politicians. To try to keep minds open as long as possible among people reading this, I'm not going to identify him at this stage or say who he was criticising.
Another of my friends from student days, Quentin Langley, made the suggestion that
" … part of the problem is that sometimes people are, indeed, self-interested, corrupt, stupid, or any number of other things.
Perhaps we should all have a policy of seeking to call out such people on our own side, while accepting we are not best placed to assess such things impartially with regard to those with whom we disagree."
Interestingly enough, the person who he was replying to came back with the words
"precisely what I feel I am doing!"
Which elicited a double take from me because he obviously didn't agree with those people now, but he would presumably would have justified this response because he had voted the same way in the referendum as the people whose integrity he was now attacking.
I have been thinking this point through and concluded that "Quentin's law" is generally right but the definition of "our own side" needs to be more fully defined.
Because there are times when compromise is essential or you end up with no decision or an outcome very few people want. A common example is the situations similar to that which currently exists in the British parliament in respect of Brexit, where there is no majority for any of about four possible outcomes.
In that position, or any other situation where you can't resolve it unless someone is willing to compromise, one of the most destructive behaviours possible - and sadly, one which often does happen - is to reserve your most venomous insults for anyone who had previously been of the same view as yourself but who now thinks that a referendum result which you don't like should be respected, or that the national interest now requires a compromise.
So I would like to suggest a modified version of "Quentin's Law" as follows with the key extra words in bold:
"Sometimes people are, indeed, self-interested, corrupt, or stupid.
We should all have a policy of seeking to call out such conduct from people who are currently arguing for the same policy as ourselves, while accepting we are not best placed to assess such things impartially with regard to those with whom we disagree, especially those who started from the same position as ourselves but now think it necessary to compromise."
Comments