Toward An Ethic Of Compromise

A sermon delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation (Blacksburg, Virginia), June 17, 2007, by the Don Robert Johnson, a former Methodist minister, a former college chaplain, and Leader Emeritus of the Ethical Society of St. Louis. Don has been in the pulpit twice a month during Rev. Brownlie’s sabbatical.

Readings

All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. We balance inconveniences; we give and take; we remit some rights, that we may enjoy others; and we choose rather to be happy citizens than subtle disputants. As we must give away some natural liberty, to enjoy civil advantages; so we must sacrifice some civil liberties, for the advantages to be derived from the communion and fellowship of a great empire. But, in all fair dealings, the thing bought must bear some proportion to the purchase paid.

from Edmund Burke Makes a Last Desperate Plea for Conciliation
with the American Colonies (March 22, 1775)

Heroism in politics is about knowing when to compromise and when not to.

Henry Clay

He never wants anything but what’s right and fair;
only when you come to settle what's right and fair, it’s
everything that he wants and nothing that you want.
And that’s his idea of a compromise.
Give me the Brown compromise when I'm on his side.

Thomas Hughes (1822-1896) from Tom Brown’s School Days

I’ve been accused of selling out so often that it has made me realize what extraordinary resources people saw in me in the first place. It’s why I can afford to sell out my ideas; I know something new’ll spring up to replace the ones I’m unloading.

Judith Rossner

Don’t compromise yourself. You are all you’ve got.

Janis Joplin (1943-1970). Quoted in Reader's Digest, April, 1973

Sermon

In 1964 an American father and his twelve-year-old son were enjoying a beautiful Saturday in Hyde Park, London, playing catch with a Frisbee. Few in England had seen a Frisbee at that time and a small group of strollers gathered to watch this strange sport. Finally, one Homburg-clad Britisher came over to the father: ‘Sorry to bother you. Been watching you a quarter of an hour. Who’s winning?’

The 'winner' ethos so prevalent in U.S. life has seriously degraded our ability to reason our way through partisan issues. Most of the time we are less concerned about the truth of the matter than we are with presenting our viewpoint. What shock it brings now if one debater actually acknowledges the other has a good point, maybe even a convincing point. It has a democratizing effect on the dialogue.

In most of life's instances to ask, ‘Who’s winning?’ is as inappropriate as to ask who’s winning a marriage. If you ask that question about your marriage, you have already lost the more important negotiation–the one about what kind of game to play, about the way you deal with each other and your shared and differing interests. Our Constitution itself is a bundle of compromises that had to accommodate varying views.

The very word “compromise” suggests our dilemma. The dictionary includes meanings such as:

settlement reached by mutual concessions;
something blending the characteristics of  two others;
to bind by mutual agreement;
to confer to arrive at settlement of a matter;
to make a shameful or disreputable concession.

These definitions imply a range of meanings from positive to neutral to evil. Yet to most of us the word has come to have a mainly negative context, which implies the final meaning mentioned above. “To make a shameful or disreputable concession” has become the primary meaning.

A Historical Example

I diverge from this topic at this moment to suggest my own interest historically. I was raised in a midwest family surrounded by the love of history and the pleasure of antiques.

Among the prized family possessions was a pair of Hazlitt dueling pistols of 1805 that belonged to Henry Clay. Henry Clay gave them to a former high school classmate who kept them and passed them on to the next two family generations. In the midst of the depression my grandfather took out a loan on their modest home to purchase these dueling pistols of Henry Clay for $75. Since my grandfather was also a Kentuckian in background, and since Clay was such a major figure of the pre-Civil War period, I was intrigued with him when I was a youngster and this has led me in recent years to want to explore more his character and role in American history. Central to this interest was to see what integrity or positive leadership might have existed in this “compromiser” between South and North, this Senator, Congressman, and four-time nominee for the presidency.

My basic view of him was negative. What compromiser with slavery could be admired? Yet this simplistic view does Clay an injustice. He wished to be remembered as one who desired “to do all for the union–that is the key to my heart.” (1844)

Note these stances he took:

• In 1790 he advocated emancipation for slaves

• In 1817 he supported Latin American independence and is one of the most highly respected U. S. leaders there.

• In 1824, 1832, 1844 he was defeated for President and failed to be nominated in 1840 and 1848

• In 1824 he enunciated a good neighborhood policy toward Latin America.

• In 1828 he proposed abolition of slavery, calling it a great evil. Lincoln often quoted him (41 times in his presidential debates with Douglas) and later said of him he is my “beau ideal of a statesman.”

• In 1830 he attacked the forcible removal of Indians from Florida.

He knew personal tragedy: He had six daughters and five sons. All six daughters died (between birth and 35), two sons died and two sons were institutionalized.

In reality his ability to fashion compromises during the forty years prior to the Civil War coupled with his active role in supporting the Union's economic growth and political stability actually allowed the North to become strong economically and mature politically.

Rather than being without principle, although clearly an opportunist politically, Clay valued longterm interests.

Yet I had a conversation with Robert V. Remini, a historian who wrote a book on Henry Clay. Because of Clay’s role in negotiating agreements, particularly between the North and South from 1820-1850, he became known as “the Great Compromiser.” Professor Remini was going to entitle his book on Clay, the first major book in over 50 years, Henry Clay: The Great Compromiser. The reaction was so fiercely negative (from friends, historians, and publisher) that he changed the title to Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union.

The failure to compromise can be both laudatory and devastating, as seen by a study of the Shakers. Their commitment to simplicity, to quality is reflected in their furniture, still with us. Yet an unwillingness to budge from a rigid view of celibacy meant their demise.

In trying to save the way of the future, one must realize no political absolutes are possible.

One may, while you find a view morally reprehensible, still avoid an immediate, absolutist solution that would create utter catastrophe.

Clay asked what is the interest of each of the constituencies over against the carnage, bloodshed, and utter doom of division and war. Of course, a self-righteous North might see this attempt at temporary conciliation as “the devil at work,” and many did.

There are varying levels of compromise–from issues involving the very core of one’s being, identity, and integrity to those involving differences of opinion, perception, timing, or style.

Life As Compromise

Life is itself a series of compromises, even a study in compromise. Who of us would dare imply that we have not faced and agreed to compromise.

At best life offers only brief oases for reflection and growth before the struggle over choices and conflicting principles enters our lives again. Most professions, whether in business, the arts, the nonprofit world, politics, education, health and the sciences bring “compromising positions” to us. I would suggest we all might spend time reflecting on the compromises of our life.

We have to ascertain the difference between those which are necessary for relationships to work, those which are based on deep convictions, and those which may seem harmless but in time destroy our own integrity and autonomy. Even then we must make sure our saving our own integrity is not at the expense of others rather than ourselves.

Many of us view “compromising” as giving in, losing. Yet to see it as part of the creative reality with which we face life's contradictions might be closer to the truth. To be aware of compromise is to have the ability to discern longterm consequences, to see a wider picture, to understand the common view or shared interest, to even see new challenges or opportunities because of compromise. We should seek a higher understanding where both sides end up with better results than if they had totally won.

Obviously many factors are involved, including our personality, the particular context, the sense of insecurity, fear, or danger we feel. What we fear in compromise is the loss of personal or professional integrity, but also the fear of losing. Our worst assumption is that in every situation of conflict there must be a winner and a loser. This win-lose power struggle is at the heart of our problems with each other when differences do exist. People tend to believe only three options exist:

1. to be nice and give in (to capitulate, to acquiesce)

2. to strike back and conquer

3. to break away and defer any consequences.

None of these will work long-term.

Principled Negotiation

What does matter is addressing the situation by asking what is the underlying principled way of compromising. A major school of conflict resolution, principled negotiation, developed in order to serve this question (the Harvard Negotiation Project). Primary is rejection of the win-lose mentality as the only option. Being nice is no answer. Bargaining one's position doesn't work. Conquering another is only another way of losing.

The major recommendations of principled negotiation include:

• separating the people from the problem

• focusing on interests, not positions

• generating options

• basing the result on an objective standard rather than -subjective feelings

Five practical suggestions might help:

1. Control your own behavior. Don't react, or else you may do what Ambrose Bierce said: “Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret.” So, at minimum, control your own behavior.

2. Disarm your opponent. Step to their side and view the issue from their perspective. What do they want? A brief illustration highlights this need: Two girls were fighting over an orange. One solves the problem fairly–she cuts it in half and starts eating her part. Only then does she find out that what the other girl wanted was to make orange juice out of the orange.

   To view the situation from their perspective means to learn to listen.

   There is a saying:

   As the governor of North Carolina said to the Govenor of South Carolina, its a long time between drinks.

   Here is its origin: In the 1840s a resident of North Carolina committed some sort of crime in South Carolina. Seeing no advantage in waiting around to be arrested, he took off for his home state of North Carolina. And the Governor of North Carolina refused to extradite him.

   This incensed the South Carolina Governor, making him so angry he set off with his staff for North Carolina, determined to bring the criminal back.

   When they arrived, the host Governor received them graciously, serving refreshments and beginning a conversation.

   Then, all of a sudden it was not friendly anymore. The South Carolina Governor, with his sense of injury prevailing, burst out with an ultimatum:

   If you don’t give that rascal up, I’ll call up my state militia and take him by force. What do you say to that?

   The Governor of North Carolina was taken aback. This was heavy stuff. But he kept his cool and said: “I say it’s a long time between drinks.” He then signaled for more drinks which were brought immediately. Soon the governor of South Carolina began to see that he had been too hotheaded, and that there were solid arguments on both sides. Well, the Governor of N.C. realised it would be a mistake to be stingy with the drinks. When they parted, the two governors did so on friendly terms.

3. Change the game. Don't reject, rather reframe.

   There is a story of a man who left seventeen camels to his three sons. He left half the camels to his eldest son, a third to his middle son, and a ninth to his youngest. The three set to dividing up their inheritance but couldn't negotiate a solution–because seventeen could not be divided by two or three or nine. The sons finally consulted a wise old woman. After pondering the problem, the old woman said, “See what happens if you take my camel.” So then the sons had eighteen camels. The eldest son took his half–that was nine. The middle son took his third–that was six. And the youngest son took his ninth–that was two. Nine and six and two made seventeen. They had one camel left over. They gave it back to the wise old woman.

   Getting Past No, p. 137

4. Make it easy to say yes. One way of doing this is to narrow the differences. Find the common ground, or a larger goal.

5. Make it hard to say no. “The best general,” Sun Tzu said, “is the one who never fights”. The goal is not to win over another, but to win them over.

   During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln made a speech in which he referred sympathetically to the Southern rebels. An elderly lady, a staunch Unionist, upbraided him for speaking kindly of his enemies when he ought to be thinking of destroying them. His reply was classic: “Why, madam,” Lincoln answered, “do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”

Keep in mind you are most in danger of negative compromise if you have an inability to deal with conflict. Maybe most difficult is to compromise when the levels of power and equality are great. To compromise from a position of a minority, of extreme weakness, or from extreme disadvantage is very difficult.

I believe that principles of dialogue, based on mutual respect, knowledge, and a willingness to be changed are key ingredients with finding areas of mutual interest. For most of us personally, the issue becomes primarily keeping our sense of integrity while also solidifying significant relationships. In Getting Together the basic elements of a working relationship are:

Rationality: Balance emotions with reason
Understanding: Learn how others see things
Communication: Consult and listen before deciding
Reliability: Be wholly trustworthy, but not wholly trusting
Persuasion: Negotiate side by side
Acceptance: Deal seriously with those with whom you differ.

It is for any of us much easier to talk about compromise and negotiation than it is to carry it out in practice.

Bibliography

Robert V. Remini, Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union,1991.
Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes, 1980
Roger Fisher and Scott Brown, Getting Together, 1988
William Ury, Getting Past No, 1991

UUC Home Page