The Trouble With Compromise

Could it be that compromise sometimes isn't a cornerstone of how Democracy functions and instead a bane to society?

I was dismayed when I read an article recapping one of the Republican debates a few weeks back when the audience, a vocal force this election season, booed candidates whose record showed a willingness to compromise with the opposition (sadly I can't find the article now). But this anti-compromise sentiment does seem to be the mood of the day. Liberals are upset at Obama for compromising on issues such as, well, just about anything, and Republicans are upset with a compromise on, well, just about anything, it seems. Thankfully we saw an exception recently with the jobs bill, but everyone knows that bipartisanship is a special case nowadays.

Why is it that we value unwavering conviction so highly, especially in today's difficult economic times when unified action could solve major problems? Well, sometimes it seems that compromise actually hurts.

Take the pro-bullying law in Michigan originally intended to be an anti-bullying law. When it was just a bill the law had the intention of preventing children from being intimidated by their peers, a practice that has been known to lead to depression and sometimes violence and suicide. Then the compromise was made: the right added an amendment to the bill that would allow for bullying to continue if in the name of "a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction." So instead of preventing bullying as originally intended, the bill actually gives legal immunity to any Christians who bully gays in the name of the bible. Previous supporters of the legislation spoke out against its mutated form but to no avail, and now the law is in the books in Michigan.

On the other side of the social political spectrum, we see what happened with the infamous ultra-sound law that just passed in Virginia. Now, before I go on I have to clear something up I wrote about this legislation in an earlier post: the form of this bill that was signed into law allows women seeking an abortion to opt for a traditional ultrasound instead of the vaginal probe technique. On the surface it seems like a good compromise and commendable job by the left in the Virginia legislature to prevent a harmful right-wing law from being too powerful. However, on second glance it becomes apparent that the law now does nothing but burn cash. The reason for the invasive vaginal probe in the first place was to obtain accurate ultrasound images where a normal ultrasound can't in the early stages of pregnancy, when most abortions take place. So in practice the law will mandate a number of costly ultrasounds that will provide no new information. The law's sexist purpose has been defeated, creating a new mandate for doctors to waste money in its place. As Eric Zorn writes in the Chicago Tribune:

The objection here is that when a doctor and a patient agree to such a test, it's a decision made for medical reasons in a clinical context.  When  lawmakers and executive officers compel a doctor to perform such a test for the acknowledged purpose of hoping to dissuade the woman from going through the with abortion, it's not a decision and not a medical procedure, but a political act.  And when that test will reveal absolutely nothing of value, it becomes a charade.

So now all that's left is the "symbolic" expense of the pro-some-life movement, leaving no one happy and everyone worse off. No wonder people are fed up with compromise.