Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Conflict or compromise

Conflict or compromise
Getty Images

William Natbony is an attorney and business executive specializing in investment management, finance, business law and taxation. He is the author of The Lonely Realist, a blog directed at bridging the partisan gap by raising questions and making pointed observations about politics, economics, international relations and markets.

Conflict or compromise is the choice facing Americans today. Oh, that also is the choice facing international relations between China and America.


“We are in a period of clamor, of bewilderment, of an almost tremulous unrest.” If this resonates as a description of today’s America, and it certainly should, it wasn’t spoken today. It was said in 1913, and could have been said at any number of similarly fraught turning points in history.

Today’s crises are not merely rhyming, they appear to be repeating. Just as in past eras, Americans need to decide whether to escalate their disagreements – both internal and external – into open conflict or work toward compromise. Compromise is much the better choice!

There are any number of Americans who sit at opposite ends of America’s political spectrum and urge the adoption of their extremist points-of-view. They fervently believe that they are “right” and those who disagree with them are “wrong.” They profess to have broad public support and allege that they speak for “truth” where their twisted adversaries speak “falsely.” They divide the world into those who are “good” and those on the other side of the political divide who are innately “evil” (categorizing those in the amorphous middle, at best, as misguided or, at worst, irrelevant). Their belief system mirrors that of countless generations of religionists, racial purists, political utopianists and assorted zealots who have seen the world in two colors, black and white, the Godless and the God-blessed. History teaches that the divisive wounds they inflict, if allowed to fester, will lead to bloodshed and economic devastation. America experienced such a lesson in bloodletting and devastation during the Civil War and for decades thereafter.

America’s diverse society has been built on a foundation of democracy and individual freedoms that are at the core of America’s unique brand of capitalism. America’s success – with the world’s most innovative industries and its extraordinary standard of living – derives in part from the American people’s focus on producing, buying, selling and investing (after all, “the business of America is business”).

America became a 20th century powerhouse because it integrated those business values into its democratic institutions and nourished them during disparate Republican- and Democrat-dominated administrations. Since the country’s birth, Americans have shared a common belief in the virtues of the free enterprise system – what Adam Smith referred to as benevolent self-interest— deeming politics, religion, race, ethnicity, sexuality and culture as peripheral to the fundamental pursuit of economic success. The result has made American democracy a consistent winner in the global Darwinian race, an outcome that now is being internally undermined by an overheated partisan pursuit of political, religious, racial, ethnic and cultural correctness.

America is nearing a flash-point where either compromise triumphs over perceived partisan righteousness and if it doesn’t, the American experiment will surely fail. Compromise is critical to our path forward; a path that would ensure the continuation of America’s economic and political success, however grudgingly such compromise might be achieved.

Partisanship has warped Americans’ hard capitalist edge. Extremists have carefully crafted what often are fictional comparisons between “our” beliefs and “theirs,” between “us” and “them,” the “good” that “we” know as being truth and the “evil” distortions “they” purvey. Yet there have always been divisions and disagreements in American politics, religions, races, ethnicities, and cultures. Reconciling those differences has furthered America’s foundational strength through the building of common-purpose bridges that reinforce American values and democracy and encourage entrepreneurship, innovation and economic success. Unfortunately, the durability of those bridges now is being tested by widening divisions that increase inter-religious, inter-racial, inter-ethnic, inter-sexual and inter-cultural resentments. Compromise has made the democratic process work. Without that compromise, conflict seems inevitable.

What is true in America’s domestic affairs is equally true in America’s international ones. What for the past few decades has been a mutually beneficial economic partnership between the U.S. and China now is a geopolitical competition that is undermining their economic cooperation and success, with spillover effects on the global economy. Henry Kissinger made this precise point in a recent Bloomberg interview: “On the current trajectory of relations, I think some military conflict [between the U.S. and China] is probable. But I also think the current trajectory of relations must be altered [so that the U.S. and China} actually engage in the sort of dialogs that I’ve suggested.” Such dialogs would represent the necessary first steps towards compromise.

Ronald Reagan’s description of America as a “shining city on a hill” – a beacon of democracy and a global incubator of opportunity and achievement – has been tarnished by the past several years of internal political partisanship and its fallout. The way to increasing American credibility and restoring Reagan’s Shining City role model is by resolving problems through agreement, not through conflict, not by tearing down existing institutions and alienating significant portions of the American public. America’s Civil War was a disaster for the country. A second Civil War could be terminal.

Read More

You can’t hide from war crimes by calling them ‘fake news’

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth speaks during a cabinet meeting hosted by President Donald Trump in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025.

(Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

You can’t hide from war crimes by calling them ‘fake news’

Since September of this year, the United States military has been blowing up boats allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean.

Whether these attacks are legal is hotly debated. Congress hasn’t declared war or even authorized the use of force against “narco-terrorists” or against Venezuela, the apparent real target of a massive U.S. military build-up off its coast.

Keep ReadingShow less
World AIDS Day and the Fight to Sustain PEPFAR
a woman in a white shirt holding a red ribbon
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

World AIDS Day and the Fight to Sustain PEPFAR

Every year on December 1, World AIDS Day isn't just a time to look back, but it’s a call to action. This year, that call echoes louder than ever. Even as medicine advances and treatments improve, support from political leaders remains shaky. When the Trump administration threatened to roll back the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), it became clear just how vulnerable such critical programs can be. The effort to weaken or even dismantle PEPFAR wasn't just a policy debate; it lifted the curtain on how fragile moral commitments are. Revealing how easily leaders can forget the human stakes when political winds shift.

Despite these challenges, PEPFAR endures. It remains among the world's most effective global health efforts. For over twenty years, it has received bipartisan backing, saved more than 25 million lives, and strengthened public health systems across dozens of countries, notably in Africa and the Caribbean. Its ongoing existence stands as a testament to what is possible when compassion and strategic investment align. Yet the program's continued effectiveness is anything but guaranteed. As attempts to chip away at its foundation recur, PEPFAR's future depends on unflagging advocacy and renewed resolve to keep it robust and responsive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illustration of the state of Texas' shape and a piece of mail.
(Emily Scherer for The 19th)

Texas’ New Abortion Ban Aims To Stop Doctors From Sending Abortion Pills to the State

Texas’ massive new abortion law taking effect this week could escalate the national fight over mailing abortion pills.

House Bill 7 represents abortion opponents’ most ambitious effort to halt telehealth abortions, which have helped patients get around strict bans in Texas and other states after Roe v. Wade was overturned. The law, which goes into effect December 4, creates civil penalties for health care providers who make abortion medications available in Texas, allowing any private citizen to sue medical providers for a minimum penalty of $100,000. The bill’s backers have said it would also allow suits against drug manufacturers. It would not enable suits against the people who get abortions.

Keep ReadingShow less