Compromise Is Not a Dirty Word

What is necessary to unite the rigid ideologue with the political expedient who believes in nothing? ...

Success is sometimes merely about getting along. Even when there are issues which divide, consensus is borne of close relationships. The importance of identifying common objectives among those with differing viewpoints on various issues cannot be understated. The individual who shuns consensus and surrounds himself with like thinkers is destined to lead a minority.

Compromise is not a dirty word. Our constitution is in fact the first great compromise, national in scope. The southern bloc would not sign off until a Bill of Rights was secured. In the US Senate, the power of small states equals that of large states, assuring the protection of the minority interest. If Alexander Hamilton wanted necessary support for his capitalist system, he needed to induce southern skeptics by offering to locate and build the new capitol city in the nation’s South.

Those guided by strict adherence to ideology become dangerous, when they are unyielding and their majority moves to dominate self-righteously. They do not compromise. The governed only get to march, the music, cadence and beat pre-determined. Rigid minds leave no room for differing viewpoints, which reflect the spectrum of human needs. Yet in certain respects we do need those who demand more than humanity can deliver, aggravating as they can sometimes be.

On the other hand, some are guided simply by political expediency, believing in little or nothing other than the upward mobility of ambition and self-interest. They are confounding, having risen without commitment to any general ideology. Since they function without program, principle or consistency, they, too, are a dangerous lot.

Between the two extremes lies an area ripe for compromise. Suppose the whole loaf is not available? Does one not accept a slice or two or maybe only just a few crumbs? The democratic system requires that this point be fairly understood.

For some in politics, it is sufficient that “the duty of the opposition is to oppose.” The need to suggest alternatives, to curb internal radicalism and irresponsibility, is irrelevant. Truth and reality have little substance in the shadows of political gamesmanship.

Against this backdrop a president heads the responsibility of government. At home, needed legislation is proposed: a national health insurance program, a comprehensive civil rights bill, labor legislation to raise the minimum wage, investment in jobs creation through infrastructure improvement to spur the domestic economy. Meanwhile, constituents raise cane about employment, adequate housing, education. But taxes must be slashed, expenditure cut from budgets, in apparent contradiction.

What begin as well-intentioned foreign policy initiatives in support of democracy on distant horizons in Asia, the Middle and Far East devolve into confrontational quagmires. Civil unrest erupts and spreads, involving unstable, unfriendly and sometimes hostile regimes. It is right to send troops, but then they turn and we must get out. Apparently, we must be internationalist and isolationist at the same time. The opposition moves further to curb the powers of the presidency. Who can be trusted in government?

Demagogues and irresponsible attackers rarely with substance cause irreparable damage to individual reputations, the State Department, Foreign Service and America’s reputation. Talented people who may be in the position to save us from future agonies are silenced or driven out, as the nation pays a heavy price. Life at the extremes has the awful consequence of compelling otherwise reasonable minded citizens into simplistic, unsustainable positions.

The times require patience, understanding, tolerance. Instead, the rabid demand quick and precise answers according to their own ideology of what is right and wrong. They have little patience with the UN, with diplomacy, with rational talk. It is much easier to claim that our leaders --- weak-kneed and soft-hearted --- are selling us out to the socialists. There is little wonder that the ordinary citizen seems confused or has a difficult time judging just what is going on.

The decade following World War II was perilous by any measure. But President Truman stood up to the grave national security threat posed by the Russians and the Chinese on the one hand, and to the unpredictable trend of harsh domestic critics on the other. It was a testament to an extraordinary display of strength and fortitude.

-Michael D’Angelo

Andrew Jackson: Where There's a Will ...

“He is a much abler man than I thought him,” commented one US Senator from Pennsylvania, “one of those naturally great minds which seem ordinary, except when the fitting emergency arises.”

Andrew Jackson, genuine American hero, enjoys an iconic, champion of the common man reputation, earned strictly on merit.  He is perhaps best known today as a highly distinguished military general and two term president.  And of course there is that face on the $20 bill.  How did it get there?

Like most of us, the colorful Andrew Jackson was not the Senator’s son.  Rather, he was the epitome of a self made man.  His father had died before Jackson was born, in the year 1767.  When he was still very young, Jackson's mother left him and his older brother to care for the Revolutionary War soldiers, who had been wounded in action and were convalescing.  As a result, he had grown up as an orphan, on his own.

During the Revolutionary War, a British soldier arrogantly demanded that the young boy get down on his knees and clean the soldier’s boots, immediately.  At the time, he was but age 13 and quite impressionable.  When Jackson refused to obey the order on grounds that he was a prisoner of war, the soldier lashed out at him with his sword.  Jackson ducked and partially deflected the blow with his left hand, blunting its full force.  The resulting deep gash left a permanent indentation on Jackson’s skull and fingers, the episode serving as a reminder for the rest of his life of his extreme contempt for all things British.

Later, at age 39, already having achieved the military rank of General, Jackson had gotten into a scrap with a local braggart on the frontier of western Tennessee.  It seemed incredible that the slightest misunderstanding over the “merest word play” should lead to tragedy.  However, each demanding “satisfaction” from the other, the two agreed to a duel.  Jackson’s adversary was a man of local prominence, who was also known to be one of the best shots in Tennessee.  For his part, Jackson knew that neither his aim nor speed at the draw of a pistol was any match.

Understanding this, together with his second, he devised a plan.  The two calculated that the only way he could survive the duel, and win, was to let his adversary draw first and hope that the wound inflicted upon him would not be fatal.  Amazingly, the plan worked.  His adversary’s quick shot had shattered two of Jackson’s ribs and buried in his chest, but it had missed his heart.  Whereupon, Jackson calmly raised his left arm and clenched it against his throbbing chest, took aim with his own pistol, and fired.  The bullet struck his adversary in the chest, passed clean through his body, leaving a gaping hole from which he bled to death.

The bullet in Jackson’s own chest could not be removed, because it was lodged so close to Jackson’s heart.  The wound never healed properly, his discomfort was considerable.  For many years thereafter, Jackson suffered intense physical pain, on account of a gunfight to restore his reputation.  “I should have hit him,” Jackson said at the time, “if he had shot me through the brain.”

What set Jackson apart was his willpower, which was not ordinary, nothing normal or even natural.  It was superhuman, almost demonic, sheer total, concentrated determination to win and thus achieve his goals, at whatever cost.  Consequently, as the preceding story serves to illustrate, Jackson was capable of extraordinary feats of courage, daring and persevering in the face of incredible odds.  Nothing less than victory was acceptable.  Defeat was unthinkable.  This fierce exercise of will, supported by supreme self-confidence and a healthy measure of talent, shaped his considerable triumphs.

Andrew Jackson’s most distinguishing physical feature was his bright, deep, blue eyes, which could shower sparks when passion seized him.  Anyone could tell his mood by watching his eyes; and when they started to blaze it was a signal to get out of the way quickly.  But they could also register tenderness and sympathy, especially around children, when they generated a warmth and kindness that was most appealing.  Unfortunately, the artist's depiction on the $20 bill offers the ordinary citizen but a tantalizing glimpse.

-Michael D’Angelo