Compromise Is not a Dirty Word

In February, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died. One of the things that came up in all the news stories afterwards was his close friendship with fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The irony was that you had a close friendship between possibly the most conservative justice and one of the most liberal, and it was a friendship based on mutual respect, not just mutual interests, compatible personalities, or whatever. They fought on opposite sides for their views, but remained friends. Some people found that hard to fathom and though it was mentioned in news reports, the great controversy over his replacement completely overshadowed what may be a very important topic for today.

I'd say that one of the most dangerous tendencies in the current American political and cultural climate is a loss of mutual respect for those that we may disagree with. Watching the process for the party nominations for presidential candidates over the last few months has been eye-opening to say the least. There are many things that have happened that I would never have imagined for our nation. The fact that we have differences and that sometimes those differences may be over very important issues and may produce emotional responses has always been true. But, our nation was founded on what united us more than what divided us. Today, the tendency is to label opponents, not just as 'wrong' but as 'bad,' 'stupid,' 'failures,' etc.

Government is an institution and institutions, even very conservative and traditional ones, are living entities because, no matter how they are structured and organized they are, they are made up of living beings. People are always growing and changing and our culture is always changing. Every generation has been influenced not only by the generation before, but by the historical events that occur around them. As people change, as culture changes, so do the institutions. But, recently we may be undergoing some fundamental changes at a more rapid rate than ever before.

The United States was from the beginning a revolutionary experiment. There had been democracies before. There had been many revolutions before but most just changed from one bad situation to another one, from one despot to a different one. However, this one was set off in a different direction from the beginning.

Christians like to believe that our nation was founded on Christian principles, and that is true to some extent, but there was also a mixture of humanist and Enlightenment principles. The fact is that most of our founding fathers were not Christian as we Evangelicals would define them. The most popular belief at the time was Deism, the belief that there was a god who created the universe, but that this god was not personal and not involved in the universe. It was more like he created a machine and then stood back to watch it work. Many would have been atheists if they could have imagined a way that this universe could have existed without a god.

Certainly that was not true of all. Washington espoused Christianity, though he was not very active in the church. John Adams was a devout Christian and Alexander Hamilton was also a Christian. But, most of the famous names that we know of were not. We have all heard of Jefferson's 'Bible' in which he cut out what he didn't like and just kept some of the moralistic principles.

Our Constitution was written in the midst of this tension between different worldviews and the conflicts of the different personalities of those involved. But, it's important to note that our forefathers very pointedly didn't want "democracy" in the sense that many people think nowadays. The rebellion was against despotism and not for democracy. They most feared a distant power in control where they had no say nor recourse. But, even more, they feared any person or institution having too much power. The initial Articles of Confederation went too far in giving a national government too little power. The Constitution that replaced it is an ingenious document that made us a true nation, but still built in strong provisions that placed great limits on that power.

What we sometimes ignore is the fact that they didn't set up a pure democracy. They didn't set up a system where everyone could vote. In most states, only male property owners could vote. They feared the rule of the masses almost as much as the rule of a king. Jefferson famously wrote, "I have ever observed that a choice by the people themselves is not generally distinguished for its wisdom." As time has passed, we've become more and more "democratic" but that's not the principle that they started from. That's why we have a Senate and a House of Representatives, both with different rules and giving States different representation. That's why the President isn't directly elected, but is chosen by an Electoral College. That's why the judiciary is appointed and not elected, and why they serve for life.

They didn't just fear a government that was too powerful. They also feared letting any one person, or any one group or party have too much power. They purposely didn't set up an efficient government. They were afraid of too much efficiency because it put too much power into the hands of whoever was in charge at the time. I remember my high school Civics teacher talking about checks and balances and that I never fully grasped what she was talking about. They feared a strong man taking over and being able to do too much. They were liberals in their day, who were also conservatives in that they desired to set up a conservative system of government--not conservative in the sense of today's party politics, but conservative in the sense of making it hard to change the system and hard to get some things done. Making it too easy to make major changes brings with it the risk of losing our system of government by all of the people and going back to some form of despotism.

We often miss this point. Our founding fathers didn't believe in true majority rule. The majority never had full power. They wanted to force our leaders to compromise. Now, many politicians are complaining about this (and not just the conservatives), and many people are looking for someone who can "get things done" and who is not a "politician." Compromise has become a dirty word, a sign of weakness and even a lack of moral standards.

The lessons of our Constitution has been overlooked in so many nations that have set up democracies, only to see them degenerate into democratic facades of one-party-states or presidents-for-life. We've seen some examples of that even in the last few years when leaders felt that a majority vote meant that they could ignore the 49%. Democracy is fragile and stands only when there is a mass of trust in both people and the system, a willingness to compromise, and a commitment to the legal process. When any of those start to fall, we risk losing it all.

We've forgotten what really made America great. It's not capitalism. It's not our great research institutions. It's not our great manufacturing ability. It's not our culture of creativity and the lack of class barriers that close off some people because of their background so that anyone can make it. It's not even great leaders, at least not what some people think of as great leaders. In fact, some of these things that we believe are not as true as we might wish (for instance, we aren't as 'class-free' as we like to think). These are important in their own way, but they are results of something else.

I believe that what made America great is that we were given a system of government that forced compromise. No one could get anything done simply because they got elected to a position.  They needed to get others on board, and sometimes that even meant at least some of the 'opposition.'  We weren't a nation of a majority that rules, tolerating the rest who could live among us if they cooperated. It was a nation united, for the benefit of all. We have forgotten the motto--e pluribus unum ("out of many, one")--on our seal, adopted by an act of congress in 1782.    

Compromise is not bad, not weak, and not a lack of commitment or moral standards. It's a respect for the system, and commitment to inclusion, a recognition no one, no group, and no movement is always right. It's a recognition that even those who may be "wrong" in our eyes, are people who deserve respect and deserve space to live their lives according to those beliefs as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. Certainly there are limits to what we can allow people to do, and laws define those limits, but there are also limits to what the law could limit. But freedom, inclusiveness, and mutual respect are the foundation of the Nation and the Constitution that we love and that so many have given their lives for.

The desire to look for a strong man to get things done, to overthrow the establishment, to look for purity, is a danger to our system. The desire for making our government more efficient (I'm not talking money, but in getting things done and making quick changes) is a fundamental change from the views of the founders. But, more than that, the demonization of opposition and the dividing line between parties, beliefs, those who aren't like us raises the possibility of us losing the freedoms that we all have taken as unassailable.

We need to remember what really made America great, and it's not what is being espoused by so many today. We have been made strong by being inclusive, by adapting to change, by accepting others and their beliefs even when we disagree. That's what has given us the greatness that we hold dear, the leadership that we've had in so many areas around the world. It's made us leaders in the world's economy, in science, in medicine, in business, in research, and in world influence. Certainly there are other great countries with greatness in all of those areas, but America has dominated that last century. Let's keep America great.

Bobby McGee

Some time ago I was listening to Janis Joplin's song, Me And Bobby McGee. There is one line in the song that I remember always being a bit confused about: Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. It almost sounds as if freedom is not important or that it is something casual. I decided to look up the lyrics to the song and see if I could figure out what the song was referring to.

I think that I was thrown off by thinking out of context. When I think of freedom, my first thought is political. We live in a free country and talk a lot about freedom. That is a high value for Americans and our country was founded upon that ideal.

But, this song isn't about that at all. In the song, Janis and Bobby are footloose and fancy free, hitchhiking and wandering aimlessly around the country. She's talking about another kind of freedom that was such a topic in the 60's in the US, and almost sounds romantic in some way. It's great not being tied down, free to do whatever you want, to roam wherever you want. What a life they were having! No cares, no worries, no entanglements.

But, at some point, Bobby decided that this wasn't what he wanted. Probably he tried to convince Janis to settle down and make a home. But, she wouldn't consider that and he decided to get off and settle down. As the song says, "...I let him slip away. He was looking for that home, and I hope he found it." But, the result was not what she thought because she goes on to say, "...But I would trade all my tomorrows for a single yesterday." And that's the context for the line, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

By hanging on to and striving for freedom, she lost all that was truly valuable. Life was meant to be lived in community, from the larger community down to the family and to that one person to whom we are to be joined for life. And yet, we often continue to chafe at the restrictions that we face when were are tied to and committed to another. The teen can't wait to get away from home some day and as time goes on, the list of things or people that tie us down gets ever longer, but none of those are as binding as marriage. There are times that any of us consider--even if it's only for a fleeting moment--just giving up and running away, and the high divorce rate points this out so clearly.

The writer of this song was actually pretty smart. How sad to think of the pain here. She kept her freedom, but in doing so, she lost it all. And now, in retrospect, she'd be willing to die to get back just one of those yesterdays with Bobby McGee.


We were not created to be alone. All of us, whether married or not, need the company of others, and more than just company, we need to be bound by commitments. We need the chance to make some sacrifices, some adjustments in our lives. We need to be in community with others.

In some ways this applies to the church as well. Christianity admits that life was never meant to be just an individual striving for God, for heaven, or for nirvana. We are meant to be in community, and it's not good to walk away from that community just because problems or tensions arise. We lose more than we gain when we are not willing to make the sacrifices needed to stay together.

Obviously it's not always possible to preserve a relationship, but what do others think of this? Do we not tend toward giving up too soon?