This blog is devoted to the benefits of compromise: societal, political, and personal, to name a few. I'd like to spend this post discussing what happens when compromise goes to far: when it becomes compromising.
Compromise, as a noun, means to give up something in exchange for something else. Compromise, as a verb, means to endanger something important. In the popular discourse, many conflate the two. We hear politicians warn against political compromise that supposedly will endanger our national security, for example. When Obama shook hands with Cuban dictator Rául Castro or negotiated with Iran, it was only a matter of minutes before the first editorial was published online envisioning Obama holding a white flag in one hand and the Munich Agreement in the other.
These, however, are good types of compromise: compromises that achieves your goals without giving away -- compromising -- anything critical. The Iran deal constitutes an easing of sanctions (doesn't endanger US national security) in return for Iran halting uranium enrichment (potentially good for US national security). The handshake with Castro was simply harmless. Many pundits are rather poor at ferreting out good compromise from bad.
Another person bad at that: Neville Chamberlain. He went too far in the other direction, thinking that a compromising treaty constituted compromise. In reality, it was capitulation. He handed over the Sudentenland (bad for British interests and really bad for Czech interests), gave Hitler a free-rein over Central Europe (horrifically bad for British interests), and got, in return, a sheet of paper (simply meaningless). Compromise entails real, verifiable concessions by both sides, not unilateral disarmament.
Nixon's trip to China was compromise, because it gave the PRC something it wanted (relations with the US) and the US something it wanted as well (an ally against the Soviet threat). Had Nixon gone to China, hat in hand, and offered a complete unilateral normalization of relations without any quid pro quo, that would certainly be an unproductive form of compromise.
As important as it is to remember that every display of bipartisanship does not equate to 1939 France, it is equally important to understand how much to give up. Compromising (as a verb) one's ethical or moral standards, for example, is likely a poor route to take. A one way "compromise" is gift-giving, not compromise. Finding the right balance is critical.
I really enjoyed reading this post and thought it brought up a great point about the reasons why people shouldn't always assume compromise is good. In particular, there is the fear that on concession will lead to something much more valuable, as happened with Neville Chamberlain. The other day in class, we were talking about the importance of trust on a personal level in diplomacy, which I think fits well with what you are saying. If there is can be a trust that both sides are viewing the compromise as a a final deal, and not simply as the stepping stone to greater concessions from the other side, than they can simply negotiate on the level of what each side is willing to give up. But if this trust is lacking, it becomes a game of how much buffer room each side will need in order to make sure that they will not need to give up something critical at some later time. This makes for either no compromise or one that doesn't maximize the interests of both parties.
ReplyDelete