Compromise is not Always the Answer

There's much to be said for compromise and it's absence in today's politics.   The political climate today makes us stand firm on our respective sides and hurl absolutes about tax-policy, the ways in which we can better defend ourselves against terrorism and many other issues. Politicians talk about the days when they could argue on the floor of Congress and walk off friends.  John McCain, in a recent interview with Tom Brokaw, talked about how he and Ted Kennedy could duke it out verbally and then talk about how good the debate was when they were offstage.

There is a place for compromise in developing fiscal policy and making government function more efficiently for example.  But there are issues where compromise is not any sort of an answer.

From the New York Times Editorial Board comes a reflection on Gen. Kelly's role as the "adult" in the White House and lessons learned on racism.  He could be seen visibly cringing as the President made a false equivalency of "fine people" on both sides in Charlottesville. There was hope. But this week General Kelly asserted that compromise could have avoided the Civil War.

To Mr. Kelly — and to the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who echoed his view from the people’s podium in the briefing room — the Civil War resulted from a failure to compromise. It might be instructive for reporters to continue to press both of them, as well as the president, about what kind of compromise over slavery they have in mind.

Indeed, General Kelly, et.al, if we made black people 5/6 or 7/8 a person instead of 3/5 would that have been acceptable?  Would it have solved the problems or pushed off the war and set back the civil rights movements of the 20th and 21st centuries?  That's a rhetorical question.  The answer is obvious.

Civil rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, HUMAN RIGHTS, will never be achieved by compromise.