Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Advance DEI, do not retreat from it

Diversity Equity and Inclusion Text on Wood Block

Getty Images//Nora Carol Photography

Advance DEI, do not retreat from it

  • President Donald Trump has directed that employees of federal offices focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) be placed on paid administrative leave.

This action is part of a broader initiative led by Elon Musk, who heads the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk has previously criticized DEI initiatives, labeling them as detrimental.

The ongoing debate around DEI laws and programs has seen significant opposition from some Republican leaders, who argue that these initiatives may undermine merit-based systems in hiring and education, particularly for white individuals.

Keep ReadingShow less
To Counter Trump’s Election Denial, We Need Nonpartisan Reform

American at a polling booth

Getty Images//Rawpixel

To Counter Trump’s Election Denial, We Need Nonpartisan Reform

January 20 marked the 26th time in U.S. history that the ultimate position of power in the country transferred from one party to another. This is an awesome and unparalleled track record. The peaceful transfer of power could well be America’s greatest innovation, fundamental to our liberty and our prosperity.

But this time, power passed to a man who tried to sabotage the 2020 elections and then pardoned the massive assault on January 6th. On his first day in office, Trump paid homage to the denial of the rule of law, the essential element to the peaceful transfer of power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independents as peacemakers

Group of people waving small American flags at sunset.

Getty Images//Simpleimages

Independents as peacemakers

In the years ahead, independents, as candidates and as citizens, should emerge as peacemakers. Even with a new administration in Washington, independents must work on a long-term strategy for themselves and for the country.

The peacemaker model stands in stark contrast to what might be called the marriage counselor model. Independent voters, on the marriage counselor model, could elect independent candidates for office or convince elected politicians to become independents in order to secure the leverage needed to force the parties to compromise with each other. On this model, independents, say six in the Senate, would be like marriage counselors because their chief function would be to put pressure on both parties to make deals, especially when it comes to major policy bills that require 60 votes in the Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

United States trade cargo container hanging against clouds background

Getty Images//Iskandar Zulkarnean

Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

During the recent election season, there was much talk of Trump’s plan to lay tariffs on the importation of foreign goods. Pundits, politicians, and journalists to the left of center consistently referred to them as a tax on the American people. Many of those to the right of center, especially those of the MAGA contingent, seemed to imply they are a pain-free way for the federal government to raise money.

Some correctly said that the country essentially ran on tariffs in its early history. Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary and arguably the godfather of our initial financial system, successfully proposed and implemented a tariff system with two goals in mind. Fund the young American government and protect young American businesses against competition from established foreign companies. The second bill signed by President George Washington was a broad tariff bill.

Keep ReadingShow less