In all the years that I have penned this weekly message I have attempted to avoid political discourse. I will not start now, but with election day looming, I do want to share some thoughts about our current intransigent political climate. With so many major issues facing our country, it appears that our elected leaders of both parties are stuck in partisan divide. Instead of facing up to challenges that demand solutions, they are mired amid philosophical bantering and personal diatribes.
Today, compromise seems to be akin to idolatry in our political process. Whichever candidates win on November 6th bipartisanship will, in all likelihood, continue to be the imminent loser.
Our great founders created a system of government that would be a battleground for clashing ideas and ideals. The checks and balances of the legislative, executive, and judiciary were designed to ensure that no one authoritative branch of government could dominate the other. Likewise, in both makeup and procedure, neither the Senate nor the House would be able to control and dictate the voice of the American people. Rather, a healthy debate of all issues would be allowed. It is a chaotic yet wonderful governing system, but it presumes that elected men and women of differing views will eventually come together when the interests of our nation require it and that they will arrive at a consensus through compromise for the common good.
Perhaps the greatest senator to ever serve us was Henry Clay (1777 – 1852). Known as the “Great Compromiser,” Clay appealed to the virtue of “mutual sacrifice” to preserve unity and strength in our nation. Though his convictions did not always make him popular, Clay was committed to acting on good character. He is attributed as once saying, “I would rather be right than be President.” Imagine any candidates today actually saying those words, let alone living them.
There is a difference between a willingness on principle to compromise and a willingness to compromise on principle. The following excepts from Henry Clay’s famous “Missouri Compromise” speech of 1850 exemplifies this difference:
It has been objected against this measure that it is a compromise. It has been said that it is a compromise of principle, or of a principle. Mr. President, what is a compromise? It is a work of mutual concession – an agreement in which there are reciprocal stipulations – a work in which, for the sake of peace and concord, one party abates his extreme demands in consideration of an abatement of extreme demands by the other party: it is a measure of mutual concession – a measure of mutual sacrifice.
Undoubtedly, Mr. President, in all such measures of compromise, one party would be very glad to get what he wants, and reject what he does not desire but which the other party wants. But when he comes to reflect that, from the nature of the government and its operations, and from those with whom he is dealing, it is necessary upon his part, in order to secure what he wants, to grant something to the other side, he should be reconciled to the concession which he has made in consequence of the concession which he is to receive, if there is no great principle involved, such as a violation of the Constitution of the United States. I admit that such a compromise as that ought never to be sanctioned or adopted. But I now call upon any senator in his place to point out from the beginning to the end, from California to New Mexico, a solitary provision in this bill which is violative of the Constitution of the United States.
The responsibility of this great measure passes from the hands of the committee, and from my hands. They know, and I know, that it is an awful and tremendous responsibility. I hope that you will meet it with a just conception and a true appreciation of its magnitude. And the magnitude of the consequences that may ensue from your decision one way or the other. The alternatives, I fear, which the measure presents, are concord and increased discord…I believe from the bottom of my soul that the measure is the reunion of this Union. I believe it is the dove of peace, which, taking its aerial flight from the dome of the Capitol, carries the glad tidings of assured peace and restored harmony to all the remotest extremities of this distracted land…And now let us discard all resentment, all passions, all petty jealousies, all personal desires, all love of place, all hankerings after the gilded crumbs which fall from the table of power. Let us forget popular fears, from whatever quarter they may spring. Let us go to the limpid fountain of unadulterated patriotism, and, performing a solemn lustration, remain divested of all selfish, sinister, and sordid impurities, and think alone of our God, our country, our consciences, and our glorious Union – that Union without which we shall be torn into hostile fragments, and sooner or later become the victims of military despotism or foreign domination…
…Let me, Mr. President, in conclusion, say that the most disastrous consequences would occur, in my opinion, were we to go home, doing nothing to satisfy and tranquilize the country upon these great questions. What will be the judgment of mankind, what the judgment of that portion of mankind who are looking upon the progress of this scheme of self-government as being that which holds the highest hopes and expectations of ameliorating the condition of mankind – what will their judgment be? Will not all the monarchs of the Old World pronounce our glorious republic a disgraceful failure? Will you go home and leave all in disorder and confusion – all unsettled – all open? The contentions and agitations of the past will be increased and augmented by the agitations resulting from our neglect to decide them.
I cannot conceive of these words coming from the mouth of either Sen. Harry Reid or Sen. Mitch McConnell. To quote Shakespeare, “A pox on both your houses!”
“Stubbornness we deprecate, Firmness we condone. The former is our neighbor’s trait, The latter is our own.” – Unknown
Have an AWE-full weekend and, if you haven’t already, please don’t forget to vote on Tuesday!
William J. “Bill” Bacque