Tweet
I have heard the basic trope that “a good compromise is one in which neither side is happy” from both pundits and politicians often enough in the past few months that I feel it needs to be addressed. At first I thought it was being used to just gloss over criticism of particular deals, but it seems many people in Washington actually believe that this is the warped standard by which compromises should actually be judged. It’s as if dealmaking is some form of masochistic foreplay and they can’t get off unless they see others suffering. It seems to go hand-in-hand with the belief in Washington that the only way to to be considered “serious” is by demanding others sacrifice.
Any specialist in conflict management will likely tell you that a good compromise is one that all sides involved are reasonably happy with. A deal that all sides are unhappy with is considered one of the worst possible resolutions to a problem. It gives all parties an incentive to break the deal later and can make it hard to get compromises in the future.
The “neither side should be happy” standard is a horrible way to judge any compromise, be it in government, business or personal affairs. As simply a general principle it is idiotic.
Image by DonkeyHotey under Creative Commons license
20 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
It depends on what the sides are, doesn’t it? If you are NASCAR, you are quite happy because you preserved a “temporary” accelerated depreciation provision in the Internal Revenue Code worth millions in tax breaks. If you are a megabank, you are happy because you preserved a “temporary” tax break for keeping your overseas profits overseas, and preserved the hope of a one-time tax holiday you can use to bring the money home tax free.
If you are a rich guy, your taxes went up, but if you can’t figure out how to manage a good bit of the increase, you are not really smart enough to keep your money; we call that financial Darwinism.
If you are an idiot with principles in the Roman Curia of the 1390s, or the House, you are miserable.
The classic definition of a stupid person is a person with whom interaction produces losses for both parties.
The classic definition of an intelligent person is a person with whom interaction produces gains for both parties.
Thanks for this Jon. I’ve done mediating and you are exactly right. That’s why I cringe everytime I hear, for example, our compromiser-in-chief say “some of my supporters are not going to be happy” or the like. It’s become code for I’m about to screw you, just like I always intended, but let you think otherwise, and your too powerless and compromised (!) to do anything about it anyway”. Meanwhile the putative “other side”, getting most of what they want anyway, get’s to rant about how they never compromise. Really there’s no need. is there?
It’s seems Obama, to the extent you can believe anything he says, mistakes compromise for abandoning supposed core positions. No. Compromise is about the peripheral. But I don’t know why I’m trying to pull his sorry ass out of the fire anyway. I don’t believe much of what he says. Didn’t vote for him. Can’t bear to watch or listen to his lying mouth move. Rarely have a second thought that maybe I’m being too had on the guy. He’s a lightweight, a traitor, or a flat out liar. Doesn’t matter to me which it is. Not to be trusted.
End of rant.
The 1% mostly runs the show and gets what it wants. So some taxes went up? Big deal for the 1%. They can hire accountants to figure out how to lessen their “burden,” and anyway, they’ve got so much money, it’s just a game anyway, for them.
Obama’s their hired hand sent there to make it look like he’s “doing something” for the 99%. In reality: not so much.
So what’s called the left – but in reality is most of the 99% - gets screwed over.
Those in the 99% who either believe that they’re in the 1% when they aren’t and/or conservatives who’ve been manipulated by the corp owned media or rightwing megachurches into hating anything Obama does (or putatively does) get to ENJOY their victimization to “that one,” aka the Kenyan Usuprer in “their” WHITE House.
It’s only a teeny tiny minority who really sees what the men behind the curtain are doing. The rest of the populace is overwhelmed with all the flim-flam hoo-hah bullshit.
IMO, there’s really no “compromise” going on. It’s just same old, different day with the rich getting richer and the rest of paying their outrageous rental fees. ptoui!
I am also sick sick sick of the thought that a comprise means both sides give something up or give ground. That isnt always the case. Like if I dont like Mexican and you dont like Chinese then a compromise might be going for Italian not making you eat Thai instead.
Sometimes one side gets NOTHING. Other times it means meeting in the middle but more often its finding another option both sides are happy with. The point is to accomplish some end result.
I love this post jon, great point making you are
“Obama, …, mistakes compromise for abandoning supposed core positions.”
Where’s that damn “like button” when you need it.
I don’t think I can add anything to that. Post speaks for itself.
I don’t think I can add anything to that. Well put.
See my #9 above.
There’s a name for somebody who goes into a negotiation with a defeatestm mindset ready to capitulate at the drop of a hat.
Oh yeah…..lilly-livered putz.
Excellent, right on target.
Coach….Click Here (*)Approve (**) Approve muchly (***) Damn straight
The very nature of compromise is that nobody gets exactly what they want.
Is reasonable compromise possible from unreasonable people with extreme agendas who have formerly been given their way for being screaming toddlers??
During the wrassling, Reid defended Social SEcurity against Obama’s willingness to offer it in exchange for debt ceiling compromises:
Nice. Only Reid stopped that deal.
I believe it’s entirely possible that this conviction that everyone must be dissatisfied for a compromise to be struck might actually have bled over, in an incestuous DC Villager way, from the Media side of the cocktail party. Remember how Deb Howell, the late former WaPo Ombudsman, used to measure the quality of articles in her paper by how many people disliked it from all sides of the issue at hand?
I wonder if the politicians are taking their cue from the ‘journalists’ in their midst, measuring their own accomplishments by the same yardstick: everyone is pissed off at me, so I win!
Of course, politicians must be elected, unlike newspaper employees, so this might be a bad guideline to rely upon.
What a lovely nineteenth century way of dealing with eliminating evidence that a deal was ever considered: Reid throws the paper it’s written on in his fireplace! As if there aren’t pixels everywhere commemorating it.
That’s a funny story.
Perfect.
Yes, yes, and yes.
good article, agree with the author.
Actually, the best compromise in a “democracy” is one that makes the majority of the population happy. Polls show that most Americans favor:
higher taxes on the rich
higher taxes on corporation
increased benefits for social programs
reduced military
universal healthcare
I’m getting a bit tired of this whole FAKE argument that the best negotiation is one in which both sides are unhappy. Bullshit.
The DC Bubbleheads, Obama included, are framing all of these negotiations with the wish lists of their special interest supporters only. Only the progressive Dems are representing the wishes of the people, and the progressive congresscritters have somehow become the minority voice in the negotiations !!