Compromise is the lifeblood of democracy. Yet the reliance on compromise to keep the wheels of government churning can at times lead to paralysis or worse.
Compromise embodies the essence of democracy in the sense it allows all parties in a controversy to have their say, and Compromise poses a problem to democracy on occasions when the middle ground has been exhausted and a resolution can only occur when one side totally prevails.
In other words, democracy has difficulty dealing with absolutes, even in an all-or-nothing situation when the choice might seem obvious. Faced with such a choice in a contentious dispute, especially one that demands immediate action, a benevolent dictator would seem to have the advantage over the cumbersome machinery of a democracy. The trouble is that most dictators are not benevolent, and even the occasional one who is, might not be in a future controversy.
Environmental issues provide excellent illustrations of democracy's success and occasional difficulty with its fundamental modus operandi.
Compromise was riding high recently when the Senate produced in bipartisan fashion a national energy bill. It contained enough give and take to create at least a temporary détente between the camps favoring fossil fuels and those advocating an emphasis on clean, renewable energy,
Indeed, Compromise is integrated into our federal legislative process. That system directs the Senate and the House of Representatives to settle in conference the differences between their respective versions of legislation as a precursor to final passage.
Our governmental land agencies, whenever possible, work to create arrangements in which adjacent developmental projects and wildlife habitat can co-exist.
Even a tax on greenhouse gas carbon emissions, in limbo because of political opposition, is the manifestation of a built-in compromise. [It would be revenue neutral because of rebates of its proceeds to the public. Pricing would be used to steer national energy consumption away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. Fiscal conservatives and environmentalists alike would be mollified, which augurs well for the levy's future.]
An example of compromise being stretched to its breaking point is when government imposes a moratorium on fish catch to rejuvenate a dangerously depleted species. When a natural resource is reduced to a level beyond which it cannot survive, that is when it can get tricky, even though rationality usually dictates that there is no option to salvation.
In line with that thought, a majority of scientists say carbon emissions must be stabilized in the not too distant future to assure a hospitable climate for succeeding generations. That will mean leaving the bulk of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground. Enactment of such a highly controversial policy may well require the intervention of a bold leader willing to risk re-election by foregoing compromise.