America Doesn’t Need More ‘Common Ground’; We Need More Compromises
Sen. McCain: Compromise and muddling through policy solutions aren’t exciting, just necessary
Five years ago this week, July 25, 2017, Sen. John McCain took to the floor of the U.S. Senate with some hard truths for his colleagues. In a forum sometimes called the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” McCain acknowledged reality: “Our deliberations can still be important and useful, but I think we'd all agree they haven't been overburdened by greatness lately. And right now they aren't producing much for the American people.”
McCain, speaking just days after he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, conceded that the pace of the Senate often is ponderous, but said the best senators today and in the past recognized and accepted “an obligation to work collaboratively to ensure the Senate discharged its constitutional responsibilities effectively” even if (and, maybe, especially when) they acted slowly.
McCain reminded his colleagues that the “men and women who played much more than a small role in our history…often had very serious disagreements about how best to serve the national interest.” Even so, said the 30-year senator, “The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress on solving America's problems and defend her from her adversaries."
McCain imparted two important lessons in his speech.
The first is that progress often is a slow journey, one step at a time. While many on the right and left reaches of American politics want change immediately, that’s not often how our country works. Change usually comes slowly, even if it ends in a big splash.
And the bigger the change, the slower the pace. Consider the journey gays and lesbians have traveled. Over the past quarter century, advocates of equal rights for gays and lesbians have had to overcome discrimination in employment, the military and just about every other aspect of modern life. Progress was incremental, sometimes with setbacks, sometimes with only tepid support and even opposition from those thought to be allies.
Yet, when all those incremental steps are added up, look at the distance traveled. In 1996, for example, a Gallup poll found that only 27% of Americans supported same-sex marriage. Today, 70% of Americans, including 55% of Republicans, believe same-sex marriage should be legal.
Certainly, the fight for full equality is far from over and for many, including transgender Americans and others, the obstacles sometimes seem to grow larger. But the incremental progress and the the cultural change has solidified some of the most important gains. Legislation to codify marriage equality gained 47 Republican votes in the House of Representatives earlier this month and, while still a long shot, has a chance to pass the Senate. That would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
(Finding the middle ground in today’s politics isn’t easy. This newsletter offers perspectives from the innovative middle. If you think the commentary makes sense, please share. Subscriptions are free. Thanks.)
McCain’s second point is a corollary to the first. Progress, even incremental progress, doesn’t come without compromise. And compromise is hard. It requires all parties to give up something they value to gain an outcome, even if that outcome isn’t complete.
Politicians, especially in election season, often talk about “common ground” as if it were the holy grail of policymaking. Nonsense. By definition, common ground is where agreement already exists. Americans have a lot of common ground today, even on the most contentious issues. A public health insurance option is supported by 68% of Americans, including a majority of both parties (Morning Consult survey, March 2021). Two thirds of Americans favor stricter gun laws (Gallup, June 2022). A solid 61% of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases (Pew Research Center, May 2022).
But surveys of public opinion can be misleading even when accurate. They typically emphasize the destination of the journey, not what it takes to get there. Yes, most Americans favor more government-guaranteed access to health care. Unless I have to give up my doctor. Unless I have to comply with more regulations. Unless I have to pay higher taxes. All the “unlesses” add up to political and policy dead ends. Critics of Obamacare didn’t focus on the outcome of expanded health access; they attacked the many small parts that were essential to achieving that goal but easy for partisans to demonize.
McCain recognized that compromise requires hard work and is politically perilous. “Incremental progress, compromises that each side criticize but also accept, just plain muddling through to chip away at problems and keep our enemies from doing their worst isn't glamorous or exciting,” he told his Senate colleagues five years ago. “It doesn't feel like a political triumph. But it's usually the most we can expect from our system of government, operating in a country as diverse and quarrelsome and free as ours.”
Defeatist? Not really. It’s the nature of crafting good policy that has sustainable public support from the diverse, large and politically fractious American electorate. But here’s the thing. Compromise means that both sides give up something they value to gain a greater good AND that we the people embrace the journey, not just the outcome. And that’s what makes it both so much harder than finding common ground and so much more important.
Think about election reform. Republicans want greater safeguards, Democrats favor broader access. Would Democrats be willing to agree to voter ID laws (with assurances that identification cards would be readily available and accepted) if Republicans accepted national guidelines that assured access to early voting and mail-in voting in every state and federal election? Yes, Democrats would be blasted by the ACLU and others, and certainly Donald Trump would be in full throat in his opposition to mail-in voting.
Does this compromise solve all the problems of fair, secure and representative elections in today’s America? Not even close. But it’s a start, and an important one at that. It gets us to a “pretty good” outcome. Accepting “pretty good” might be a critical step toward getting to an even better solution. And, politicians could take a measure of comfort knowing the proposals on which such a compromise would be built are backed by solid majorities of Americans (Monmouth survey, June 2021).
This isn’t a pitch to give up one’s values or to suggest that in a compromise one agrees to never return to other pieces of the solution that are important to either side. Rather, it is a suggestion that compromise can contribute to creating a political environment where we can find agreement on defining the problems and starting to solve them.
One more point on compromise. It takes understanding from voters that solutions take time and that compromises often aren’t glamorous or exciting, as McCain noted. But if we are to ever to move beyond the rigid ideologies of left and right, then voters have to put solutions - even partial solutions - ahead of politics. Voters have to be willing to support those candidates with whom they may not agree on everything, but who work toward progress. And, voters need to support office holders – even those of the opposing party – who recognize that an “all or nothing” usually means nothing.
The alternative is to keep praising common ground even while the ground under our feet crumbles.
In many districts and some states if an incumbent steps too far outside of the ideological boundaries of a party that is controlled to much by organizations whose dogma are not tolerant of compromise, you can expect a primary challenge that could prevent you from getting to the general election with a more compromise friendly electorate. Good intentions may often face too many barriers to getting into or staying in office if there is an unforgiving partisan line to be toed.
Thanks for the response. Interestingly Stacy Abrams thought her GA election was illegitimate as well without evidence. At any rate - I too would compromise on voter ID but not for ranked choice which I don’t think has anything to do with access or security. I think the compromises should be analogous to the issue trying to be addressed. In this case either security or access. I would consider a consumption tax in exchange for entitlement reform. As you can see - while compromise is available even finding a landing spot is difficult.
Tom - you should consider applying for a Board position with the Citizens League. We are currently looking to fill several open spots and I think you could make valuable contributions.