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

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep ReadingShow less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Great Political Finger Trap

Protesters gather near the White House on November 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. The group Refuse Fascism held a rally and afterwards held hands in a long line holding yellow "Crime Scene Do Not Cross" tape along Lafayette Square near the White House.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The Great Political Finger Trap

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination earlier this year, a YouGov poll was released exploring sentiments around political violence. The responses raised some alarm, with 25% of those who self-identified as “very liberal,” and nearly 20% of those polled between the ages of 18 and 29, saying that violence was sometimes justified “in order to achieve political goals.” Numerous commentators, including many within the bridging space, lamented the loss of civility and the straying from democratic ideals. Others pointed to ends justifying means, to cases of injustice and incivility so egregious, as they saw it, that it simply demanded an extreme response.

But amidst this heated debate over what is justified in seeking political ends, another question is often overlooked: do the extreme measures work? Or, do acts of escalation lead to a cycle of greater escalation, deepening divisions, and making our crises harder to resolve, and ultimately undermining the political ends they seek?

Keep ReadingShow less