However, all
that is in doubt if we don’t look much deeper into the processes and procedures
by which we get to common ground. For
common ground can only be brought forth by a defined common Mission and common Purposes. I have already spoken briefly about how the
new House majority should concentrate on setting-out a broad national Mission
and broadly-defined Purposes, followed up by each unit, committee, contractor,
department, office, etc. being required annually to set action goals and
budgets in the pursuit of those common Purposes. In other words: start by
changing how the House operates and then maybe we can broaden the recognition
of what must be done and can be done.
What
concerns me today is that I am hearing over and over on mainstream media the
refrain that we must learn how to “compromise” in order to come to
agreement on any issue, like infrastructure repair and re-building. I hear this from politicians, political
science professors, government experts in journalism; from many sources.
I am here, as one lowly voice in the social
media world, crying out to say NO! Compromise is not the complete answer;
not even the best answer! In our current
divisive climate, it may not be viable at all!
Compromise is but one way of several to reach
common ground, and to move forward toward agreed-upon implementation of
whatever common ground is reached. But, let us explore the concept a bit.
“Compromise”
is defined variously:
Oxford: noun:
“an agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making
concessions”; something like a Peace Agreement or Trade Agreement, perhaps,
usually involving concessions, terms and accommodations; settling dispute by mutual concession; “meeting
halfway or finding common ground"
Dictionary.com: “a settlement of differences by
mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or
opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands”
Thefreedictionary.com:
“something that combines qualities or elements of different things;”
e.g. an incongruous design that is a compromise between high tech and early
American
Wikipedia: “to compromise is to make a deal
between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. In arguments, compromise is a concept of
finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms –
often involving variations from an original goal or desire. Extremism is often considered an antonym to
compromise, which may be associated with concepts of balance and tolerance.
In the negative connotation,
compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of
objectives, principles, or material, in the process of negotiating an
agreement. In human relationships, "compromise" is frequently said to
be an agreement with which no party is happy because the parties involved often
feel that they either gave away too much or that they received too little."
Thus, my
conclusion that compromise is not always the best concept to use when attempting
to find common ground because compromise can end up epitomized by blandness,
hollowness, appeasement and loss of principle.
On the other
hand, compromise as a working concept for finding common ground is probably in
play much of the time when any negotiations or melding of concepts is
necessary. So, we cannot rule it in as
the only way to find common ground, and we cannot rule it out whenever two
parties are seeking common ground. In
other words, it is a handy tool to have at one’s disposal when the situation
(the context) calls for its use.
What other
actions or concepts can we use to move toward common ground? I have already mentioned a few like teamwork
and the defining of a Mission and Purposes for the newly elected cadre in Congress,
or for Congress itself. Let us keep
those concepts in mind as we list other concepts, like:
MAJORITY
RULE: one way that Congress uses, along with most
organizations, is to vote on everything with prior agreement that the majority
will rule and whatever is under consideration will stand by the majority vote. We already know some of the limitations of
that concept! It always leaves some
individuals or groups disgruntled or angered over their losses. It especially doesn’t work well when the sides
are pretty much equally divided by principles and ideology, and the vote is
sometimes lost and sometimes won.
And that is
pretty much the problem with majority vote on matters that affect lives of the
American people: there are designated winners
and losers, when what we need most of all are unity, equal opportunities for all,
and government that seeks the welfare of all of its people. Majority vote, like compromise, should be
used when and where appropriate as a means to a fruitful end; e.g. as a means
of finalizing something that has not been activated, but must be done.
CONSENSUS:
is something difficult to use without some familiarity with the concept and the
process. It is probably used most successfully in small groups or teams where
agreement is paramount. Once again,
definitions are in order.
Oxford: “a general agreement” or a “consensus
view;” everyone’s viewpoint is taken into account, and harmony or like-mindedness
are stressed.
Wikipedia: “Consensus
decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group
members develop, and agree to support a decision in the best interest of the
whole... even if not the "favorite" of each individual. It has its
origin in the Latin
word cōnsēnsus (agreement), which is from cōnsentiō meaning
literally feel together.[1]
It is used to describe both the decision and the process of reaching a
decision.
If Congress
were to use the constructs of bi-partisan teams or task forces to get things
done for the people; i.e. to solve problems, to increase opportunities for life
enhancement, or to find usable innovations, this method of decision-making might work. Bi-partisan
teams or task forces meant to research and report back on alternative
approaches, working examples, or innovative solutions, might well agree to use consensus
as their modus operandi for making decisions.
Consensus-building is more than just making decisions. A lot goes into the process of reaching
consensus and I found that Wikipedia had a good story to tell about their own
staff process of coming to consensus on what goes into their articles and what
does not. Here, in brief, are elements
of their process:
· All
edits (read: positions, facts, opinions,
hypotheses) should be explained (unless the reason for them is
obvious)—either by clear edit summaries indicating the
reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page.
Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be
addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus.
· most
disputes over content may be resolved through minor changes rather than taking
an all-or-nothing position. Often, a simple rewording will satisfy all editors'
concerns. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the
encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through
combat and capitulation
·
When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone,
the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on
the associated talk page and try to work out the
dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using
reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also
suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The
result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that
all recognize as a reasonable solution.
·
When editors have a particularly difficult time reaching
a consensus, several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, requests for comment), and even more
extreme processes that will take authoritative steps to end the dispute (administrator intervention,
formal mediation, and arbitration). Keep in mind, however, that
administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will
not decide content issues authoritatively.
By soliciting outside opinions
·
When talk page discussions fail—generally because two
editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an
issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to
offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks,
because uninvolved editors can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help
involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves.
·
With our modern means of communications, you would think
that information-gathering and collection of a variety of opinions would be paramount
in congressional offices. But, are we
searching broadly enough? Are we using
biased Think Tanks for collection of information, or are they being used to
produce ideological slants on every possible issue? Whatever happened to seeking opinions and
ideas from the original Think Tanks – our colleges and universities?
· Using a consultant-driven process whereby expert information and
professional techniques are brought to bear on making a decision. Many cities and communities opt to “bring in
consultants” to help them in their major decisions; sometimes good decisions
and outcomes result; sometimes not so much.
Congress uses Committee hearings most often as their “consultations”;
but unfortunately, consult with lobbyists paid by special interests who are
simply out to influence decisions in a rewarding way so that the source of the
information is also the benefactor of the outcome of legislation or resolution.
This latter process is the worst way to make decisions that truly benefit the
ordinary citizen, and the people as a whole.
· Trial and Error or the “experimental process is another way to make
decisions. It comes down to funding and
supporting innovative programs or services that sound good but have had several
objections or negative opinions against them.
However, there is a general
feeling that something might work. Conducting
an experiment or first step for a year might enable enough support that a
decision could be favorable. It works in
private businesses and services, why not in the national government? Are we afraid to experiment and research in
order to make better decisions? Probably…
· Pros and Cons is
another way to make decisions, particularly between two competing or equally
regarded alternatives. This is a fairly well known and often used
technique, yet we have to wonder if Congress ever employs it given their
inability to come up with many decisions of real substance.
Congress showed its worst possible process for
decision-making during the Senate hearing related to consent to the nomination
of Judge Cavanaugh as a Justice of the Supreme Court. It demonstrated lack of preparation, lack of research, the lack of criteria for approving a judge, the lack of
materials – written or recorded-- that should have been available to all before
the hearing began. It represented an
abdication of responsibility that Congress do due diligence whenever any
nominee or citizen offers information relative to the decision needing to be
made. It lacked any sense of teamwork; consensus, or common ground. It showed, above all, that we lack good government
when persons elected to responsible positions cannot even prepare themselves
for good decision-making because they lack the basic training, basic skills,
and sense of common purpose that lead to good decisions.
Compromise
under these circumstances is not the answer. Congress must change its rules,
its processes, its decision-making techniques and its attitude toward law-making
because in the last two years, we saw absolutely nothing of substantive
outcome. Too many principles have already been compromised and undermined by
Trump and his captives in Congress. The
newly elected Democrats need to get busy right away to drastically change what
passes for a national Legislature meant to protect and defend the Constitution. They must ensure that the People of this
nation can rely on having their welfare and happiness be the top priority of
this and every Congress. And, it is certainly not too much to ask that training
in decision-making and problem-solving techniques be required of every member,
because, as I said: compromise is probably not the most viable alternative under current circumstances.
