Whatever Happened to Compromise?

Remember the Great Compromise from your high school history?  This was the 1787 agreement between big states and small states that essentially created our current form of congress.  Small states were concerned that in a legislature whose representation was decided by population their interests would be lost, while big states felt that their larger populations called for greater representation.  In the end, two houses were created, one lower house whose representation was decided by population, one upper house which gave equal representation to each state.  With this, one of the most stable governments in history was created.

Here, at the beginning of the 21st century, that sense of compromise in this country is all but dead.

Blame it on the pundits or blame it on political parties marrying themselves to special interests in order to generate enough revenue to perpetuate their existence through the endless cycle of political campaigns, but our national political and social debates have increasingly disintegrated into a contest in which the participants place their hands over their ears and attempt to shout loud enough to drown out their opponents.  Soft-spoken, insightful pundits such as George Will or Mark Shields are out of vogue while reactionaries and extremists such as Sean Hannity and Al Franken have captured much of the public’s attention.  And why not?  Listening to a pundit or political figure expound on why the opposition is incrementally bringing about the destruction of the nation is far more entertaining than those frank political discussions that the networks push to the broadcast hinterlands of Sunday mornings, and in today’s America entertainment is what it is all about.  But somewhere in all that screaming, important and necessary discussions are being lost.

Obamacare seems to be the most recent debate in which no one is listening.  The most extreme opponents are claiming that Obamacare is some form of devious scheme by the administration to take over our health care and decide what sort of care goes to what individuals (”the elderly will be euthanised!”).  Of course, many of these pundits are simply using scare tactics to frighten the most vulnerable and suggestive of their listeners while ignoring the real problem of affordable and available health care in the country.  On the other hand, those supporting Obamacare are claiming that the opposition is organizing planned protests in order to disrupt informational meetings (how dare the conservatives use tactics created by liberals) while putting off real questions as to how the proposed plan will be financed.  Certainly, somewhere, intelligent debate is taking place concerning this issue, which is probably the most important domestic issue that will be discussed during Barack Obama’s tenure in office.  The sad thing is that little of that intelligent debate will filter its way through to the ears of the American public.

For the good of our nation, it is time that we realize that individuals such as Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann are basically opposite sides of the same coin.  As long as a person states their case long enough and loud enough with no opposition (or, in some cases, very weak opposition), there is no need to even consider the other viewpoint, no matter what validity that viewpoint may have.  At a point in history when our nation seems to be at a crossroads and  it is crucial that all voices be heard, too many of those with the largest megaphones are insisting that only their viewpoint be heard.  That is a path to assure than no problem is ever truly solved.