Principles and Compromise

Standing up for what you believe in will always come with consequences.  Compromising with others in order to make progress will always come with consequences as well.  The next few weeks are likely to be filled with compromise.  They will also be filled with a lot of drama and posturing and attacks on people’s character and motives and actions.

On the national scene we have a fiscal crisis looming.  The federal government officially reaches its borrowing limit next week, and unless there is a compromise there will be a shutdown of government.  There is already a lot of negotiating and compromise going on with regard to tax reform and health care as well.  

 

Make no mistake; all of these issues will be resolved.  Congress will pass a bill to fund the government, and they will also eventually pass bills reforming the tax code and health care.  What those will all look like remains to be seen.  They may be bold policy changes, or they made end up being watered down versions of the status quo.

 

In my home state of Missouri the legislative session is coming to a close and tensions are already running very high.  There was drama in the senate this week between individual Republican senators and between a Republican senator and a Republican governor.  Technically, these fights are “non-partisan”, but they are getting just about as nasty and personal as many partisan fights.

On the world stage we find ourselves in the middle of some intense conflicts around the globe, from Syria to North Korea to Iran, and we are talking tough and using military force and engaging with foreign leaders in an effort to force compromise.  Time will tell how this will end.

Nobody likes to compromise.  We want things to be the way we think they should be, and we don’t see why we should have to give in to others.  It is human nature.  However, I believe compromise is necessary if people are going to live together on the same planet, or in the same country, or state, or for that matter the same house. 

 

Marriage is the ultimate exercise in compromise, where you commit to staying together with another imperfect human as a team for the rest of your life.  Those of you who are married understand very well that you can’t always have your way, even when you are right.

 

We all have principles and standards.  Some of those are more flexible than others.  You have some principles that you could never compromise on, and some where you are open to consider other opinions.  Likewise there are some standards that you could lower, and some that you could not.  In each case it is up to you to decide what your principles and standards are, and what you can compromise on and what you can’t.

 

I believe in fiscal responsibility.  We should live within our means, and not consume more than we produce, or spend money we do not have.  As a result I think our budget should be balanced, and we should pay off our debt and not run a deficit.  But I know that those things are not going to happen and I have no expectation of a completely balanced budget this year. To expect that would be to ignore reality.  Holding out for that which is pure but not possible means one cannot take part in reaching compromise.  You are in effect taking yourself out of the discussion.

 

The negotiations over tax reform and health care are going to put a lot of people in uncomfortable positions, because we do need to reform both, but we are not going to be able to pass perfect bills that do not violate any of our core values.  The Freedom Caucus and Tuesday Group are both going to have to give a little, or we will be saddled with Obamacare as it is and there will not be any much-needed tax reform.

 

Often we cannot even agree on the facts.  The fake news phenomenon has made a real mess of proper debate in this country.  We are all flooded with biased and incorrect information and real facts are often disputed by the chronically ignorant.

From my couch in Missouri it is really difficult for me to know exactly what is happening in Syria in the fog of war.  It is hard for me to be certain if Bill O’Reilly or Bill Cosby or Bill Clinton are telling the truth or being smeared.  I don’t know for sure if a senator’s roommate is a good guy or an evil lobbyist.  I don’t know if the aircraft carriers are heading for Australia or North Korea or why certain people spoke to the Russians.  I have heard the narratives but from this particular couch I cannot independently verify the facts. I have strong gut instincts but I cannot always be certain what the truth is.

What I can do is watch what people do, and compare it to what they said they would do.  I can listen to their philosophy and see if they are consistent.  I can read and listen to the arguments made.  I can gather facts and compare them to claims made.

This week in Missouri there was a lot of drama, and much of it centered on Senator Rob Schaaf.  Last week the senator announced he would end his long opposition to a Prescription Drug Monitoring Program as long as doctors were actually required to use it.  The sponsor agreed and his amendment was added and the bill was approved by the senate and sent back to the House for a vote.  The House then rejected the plan, presumably because doctors would now be required to actually use it.

 

As the session comes to a close there is a lot of pressure to pass bills, and a lot of manipulation going on.  From my couch I do not know all of the details but this week Senator Schaaf got tired of the games and (as he is empowered to do) took all of the bills off of the informal calendar.  This has the effect of slowing things down, and blocking legislation from moving through quickly.

Caleb Rowden is another Missouri Republican Senator who took exception to some of this obstructionism and called Schaaf’s personal integrity into question in a face to face confrontation on the senate floor.  Later in the week Missouri Governor Eric Greitens used his own nonprofit to call out the senator in a series of ads where they actually posted his cell phone number and called him a liberal.  The governor was also apparently using robo-calls this week to Missouri citizens attacking Schaaf to put pressure on him.

 

All of these people are Republicans.

 

No doubt the Freedom Caucus will face this type of political pressure and more, also from their own party, if they do not agree to compromise.  From the world stage to the federal to the state it seems the new normal, like the old normal, is to viciously attack anyone that stands in the way of what you wish to accomplish.

 

We know that Republicans and Democrats don’t listen to each other.  Conservatives and liberals would seem to prefer fistfights in Berkeley to meaningful dialogue. Often these clashes are more about “team” than substance.

 

If the Republican Party wanted to be consistent they would repeal Obamacare in its entirety and start over.  I have always preferred free market solutions but most Republicans don’t think that will work. Similarly, I favor free trade but many Republicans now favor protectionism.

 

When people step into the public arena they subject themselves to public criticism.  This is not a new role for Schaaf; he has long been the final line of defense against stupid and misguided legislation. The rules allow a senator to hold the floor indefinitely unless a group of senators get together to part from tradition and call the previous question, which rarely happens.

 

I am not an expert but it is my understanding that one senator will take on that role and as a result become the target of attacks, allowing other senators to stay above the fray, so to speak.  Rob Schaaf has used his role very effectively, but there is always a price to be paid.  One can look at the history and it becomes clear that he is a friend of Liberty and limited government, based not on a cult of personality but rather on an examination of his record.

 

In the coming weeks I expect emotions will run high and the pressure to compromise will be intense.  The Freedom Caucus members have already been targeted by name by the president, and those attacks will likely be repeated.  They will also be targeted by people who don’t want to see any compromise.  Whatever they “cave” on will subject them to the abuse of purists, who will see them as “selling out” their principles. 

 

Mark Meadows is negotiating so that they can be part of moving the needle in their direction. Rob Schaaf did the same thing when he compromised with Holly Rehder on the PDMP.  Seeing that it was probably inevitable he chose to negotiate for the best outcome that he could.  He said that if there was going to be a PDMP that it should at least be effective, and he negotiated a compromise that made the bill better.

 

A week later the Missouri House had rejected his compromise, his integrity was being called into question on the senate floor, and the governor was attacking him in ads and robo-calls.  So much for compromise.

I too have chosen to take on a role.  My role is to sit on my couch here in Lake St. Louis and pontificate about what other people should do.  I sit and offer criticism of people in Washington and Jefferson City, pretending I know the good guys from the bad guys and good votes from bad votes.  Like the senator, putting myself in that role opens me up to criticism not just for the opinions I express but for my own hypocrisy.  When we are critical of others we invite their scrutiny.

 

The reality is that none of them are perfect; neither the people nor the votes they take. I am far from perfect as well, and so I often wonder what gives any of us, myself included, the right to throw stones.

 

I think the answer is that we should focus on ideas instead of people.  If an idea promotes the principles we believe in we should be supportive, and if it doesn’t, we shouldn’t.  Throwing stones at ideas is not the same as attacking people. We can’t ignore reality, and we are going to have to compromise.  But if we are hypocrites, then we should expect to be called out on our hypocrisy, whether on the world stage or the state capitol or in our own home. 

 

Sometimes compromise is impossible.  Sometimes we will have to stand in the way and prevent bad ideas from becoming reality.  That is not a comfortable thing to do, and it will make you a target for those who disagree with you.  They may then attack you by rightly pointing out your own hypocrisy.  Or, they might just make things up to smear you as retribution for daring to defy them.

 

I am an imperfect human, but I do know what I believe.  I believe in a lot of lofty ideas which I can describe in some detail.  I also know that I have failed to live up to those lofty ideas.  But that does not make me a hypocrite, it just makes me human.  The ideas are not wrong; I just failed to live up to them.

 

I am a big fan of the US Constitution, but it is not perfect.  It is a compromise, and therefore is an imperfect document.  Like the problems that confront us every day in our personal lives, there are no “perfect” solutions to the problems we face, and there is no perfect document or set of rules to follow to make everything right.  But we know when we have violated our own standards.  We know what principles have some wriggle room in our own conscience and which do not.  Most of us feel that queasy feeling in the pit of our stomach when we cross the line.

 

Most of you have a set of principles you operate by.  You have a set of standards for yourself.  The question for you is not if you have violated someone else’s standards.  The question is whether you violated your own.  And if you continue to do so then perhaps you should reconsider what you say you believe.

 

On the other hand, not all of you have a clear set of principles and standards, either for yourself or for others.  Sometimes that is on purpose.  People without principles or standards don’t risk violating them.  And that makes everything a lot easier.