Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Discard the principle vs. compromise distinction

options A and B, crossed out
3D_generator

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

One of the most basic conflicts in politics, and in life in general, is whether to stand by your principles or be open to compromise. Woodrow Wilson is known as a president who stood by his principles regarding America's need to join the League of Nations, an organization he proposed for all of the participants in World War I in his famous 1918 Fourteen Points.

That dedication ultimately killed Wilson because his passionate defense of his principles led to a stroke during a speech in Pueblo, Colo. The Republican-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee refused to confirm Wilson's treaty because it failed to meet a number of members’ reasonable demands.


Abraham Lincoln, according to the late Harvard historian David Donald in “ Lincoln Reconsidered,” was the quintessential pragmatist who said, "My policy is to have no policy." He did what he needed to do in order to preserve the Union, including issuing the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 at a time when it served our interests to discourage England and France from joining sides with the Confederate states halfway through the Civil War.

Parents are confronted with the tension between principle and compromise regularly in raising their children. Some parents rigidly follow moral principles and raise their children to be honest and fair and develop a strong conscience; other parents encourage their children to be empathetic, caring and open to offering people breaks. In the 1950s, these two styles would have separated fathers and mothers, whereas today things are much more complicated.

It is time to discard the binary choice between principle and compromise. Indeed, Donald's Lincoln is a case in point. For although Donald argued that Lincoln was in the "pragmatist tradition" of American history, he insisted that Lincoln was committed to a range of basic moral and political principles, notably the leading concepts of liberty and equality in the Declaration of Independence. The philosopher John Dewey epitomizes the pragmatist tradition, since he rejected the traditional "Quest for Certainty" in Western philosophy that included the individualist standpoint for obtaining knowledge associated with the "father of modern philosophy," the 17th century French philosopher Rene Descartes.

In American politics today, the right-wing Freedom Caucus is the most devoted to principles, especially principles about limited government. Yet so devoted are its members to their principles that they have caused great disruption not only in the Republican Conference but in the House of Representatives and Congress overall. The ousting of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy for working with the Democrats to prevent the government from shutting down was a destructive act. If Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is able to lead an effort to oust Speaker Mike Johnson, then more damage will be done to the House, Congress and Washington politics overall.

Whether the topic is personal life, Washington politics or the wars between the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Israelis and Hamas (and the Palestinians), the old binary choice between principle and compromise must be rejected. There is plainly too much complexity in personal life, American politics and international affairs today to rest decisions solely on principle or compromise. The only principles that should be relied on should be subject to revision and negotiation.

Democrats, for example, must be open to raising the age for Social Security benefits. It is no longer tenable to be 100 percent against such a political change when people are living longer due to better health care and the vast majority of jobs are not in physical labor. Exceptions can be made, but 100 percent commitment to retaining a 67-year-old retirement age for full benefits (which reflects one change since 1935) is more a sign of electoral fear and self-protection than responsible politics.

A truce in Washington is needed between the advocates of principles and the advocates of compromise. We literally need some new words and phrases (at the very least language like "this vital principle is not an absolutist principle") to help us chisel away at the brutal polarization in Washington, which is much worse than the polarization in the country. According to Gallup, 43 percent of Americans in 2023 did not even identify as Democrats or Republicans. They identified as independents.

Overcoming the simplistic binary choice between principles and compromise should be one of the main themes of election 2024. It would benefit our country if someone running for president talked about this issue.

Read More

Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less