The Politics of Integrity, Part IV: Ethical Integrity and the Case for Compromise
Promises are Made to Be Broken
Political campaigns are about promises. Promises to act and to reform, to replace and to improve. And not only promises but commitments also, commitments and pledges, declarations and vows. Romney will repeal Obamacare, Santorum will stop job-killing regulations, Newt will replace the EPA, and Ron Paul will “end” the Federal Reserve. The list goes on.
But while campaigns are defined by their promises, no elected official ever manages to complete even a small percentage of their pledges. Priorities shift, circumstances change and, most importantly, political and institutional barriers stymie. Nor are legislative victories ever as pure as the pledges that motivated them. Deals must always be brokered, compromises made. In our political system, all legislative victories are inevitably imperfect.
The inevitability of imperfection does not, however, stop critics from attacking even the most impressive legislative victories. Critics from the opposition are always fierce, but the sharpest attacks often come from the political base. Witness the attacks on Obama from the left for the bail-out, the finance bill and healthcare. He’s a sell-out; he’s been captured by DC politics; he’s a pawn of Wall Street.
These are a form of what I’d like to call attacks on ethical integrity (in previous posts, I discussed attacks on personal integrity and political integrity). But are these attacks justified? Are politicians properly criticized for compromise?
In my last post, I explored the situation where a politician changes position because new data comes to light; I specified that the change in position was about means, rather than ends. For example, a congressman who is committed to broad healthcare coverage realizes that market mechanisms are not actually going to result in sufficiently widespread insurance availability, and so switches her position to support single-payer.
But what about a compromise that represents a shift in values, or at least, a willingness to be flexible about values? Should a politician who changes their position on a question of normative value by agreeing to a compromise be attacked? Bemoaned? Discredited?
I want to argue the opposite position – that such compromises – like Obama’s compromises over various provisions of 2009 healthcare legislation — are not only necessary but affirmatively good. In my view, such compromise represents a commitment to the value of our democracy as a procedure for peaceful resolution of social conflict.
The iPhone Democracy
Before we get there, let’s play out a quick hypothetical. Imagine a country — let’s call it RousseauVille – where the citizens hate compromising politicians, and decide to do away with them completely. Through direct constitutional amendment, they enact the following rule to govern decision-making:
Every citizen is to be issued an iPhone. On that iPhone, there is to be a special i-gov application. Each morning, every citizen will receive a text message to their iPhone through i-gov with the day’s policy questions. In order to use the iPhone for normal activities, each citizen must vote on every policy question. The majority vote will be decisive for each issue. No compromise positions are possible; each issue will be decided through up and down vote.
Although the policy permits debate on each policy issue, as a matter of practice citizens are in too much of a rush (to answer their email, to play Angry Birds) and so little discussion is actually had. Instead, citizens vote every morning, and every evening the majority vote carries the day.
Compromise as the Good
What’s wrong with RousseauVille, with this form of direct democracy? I see three major problems. First, without debate, a substantial percentage of the population loses completely on every issue. Second, because there is so little time for reasoned argument, new ideas rarely emerge. Third, and for the same reason, there is no chance for reflection on underlying values nor opportunities to hear the positions of those with whom you disagree.
While RousseauVille is an obvious fiction (though perhaps not technologically impossible), it has an analogue in our current political system. If we simply elect our politicians based on our normative preferences, and forbid them from ever compromising on their positions, we are essentially enacting a form of direct democracy. Such a system forbids citizens from finding common ground, and instead yields intractable conflicts that are resolved only through the symbolic violence of direct majority rule.
Let’s take as a contrast the kind of compromise embodied in Obama’s healthcare legislation. While it was imperfect as a matter of reasoned policy, it was that way because it represented a synthesis of conflicting ideas and values, negotiated under conditions of peaceful debate, which provided solutions palatable if not ideal to the many interested constituencies.
I see this as a normative good. Politics should not, I think, be simply the dominance of one party over another nor one ideology over another, but rather a space for social conflict to be mediated and, at least temporarily, resolved. Even if we don’t come up with the most elegant policy solutions, and even if they cost society in efficiency terms, we should see these costs as a reasonable expense for the peaceful resolution of disagreements. Indeed, they are a small price to pay for maintaining peace in a nation marked by incommensurable visions of the good life and the good society. We live in the United States under conditions of profound political division; that’s why it is ultimately the political process, messy as it may be, that deserves our loyalty.
In this way, political compromise is integral to democracy. If our politicians simply channeled our ideological and policy positions directly, and refused to ever find common ground with opponents, we would either be permanently gridlocked or rule only through direct majority vote. Neither strikes me as a good alternative. That’s why compromise is a normative good. The compromise of our elected officials represents a proper response to the existential divisions which divide us. And an absolute unwillingness to compromise – as we see among Tea Party candidates who have signed the Tax Pledge and that we witnessed among the environmental radicals who attacked all climate legislation — is rightly attacked as wholly unreasonable and indeed as anti-democratic.
So next time a politician is called a sell-out for compromising her position, just think about the alternative – a world without any political compromise, where ideas are never shared, voices never heard, positions never shifted.
You’re spitting some hot fire here Nath.
I suppose the author has never heard of the Citizens’ Initiative Review process in Oregon whereby a randomly selected sample of Oregon voters deliberate on policy proposals? This type of deliberation could easily be extended to national policy questions. Take a look at http://ni4d.us/en/consultation
Direct online democracy is happening now with the OWS. The greatest objection to it is not real. Online initiatives and referendums cannot be compared to corrupt voting machines. If with proper safeguards we can bank online, buy things online, pay taxes online and if the Internet can be made safe for corporations, banks, the military, government, and even spy agencies, it can be made safe for citizens to propose laws and vote them up or down continually instead of every four years.
Hi Troy,
Thanks for your comments. That doesn’t really answer my concern, though: do we want people to vote online immediately without a chance for public debate? I’m not so sure; I still believe in the power of public reason.
Nate
Thanks, Joshua. That’s interesting. I had heard about this years ago but not thought about in this context. Direct citizen deliberation is certainly valuable, though I have serious doubts about its scalability to a national level, and if only some small subset of citizens are deliberating about any given issue, I’m not sure how far we’ve gotten. There’s a reason direct democracy worked in Athens, a polis of some 20,000 adult citizens who depended on slavery for the freedom of time to debate every civic issue extensively. That’s not a model we should emulate.
“though I have serious doubts about its scalability to a national level, and if only some small subset of citizens are deliberating about any given issue, I’m not sure how far we’ve gotten.”
Well, I urge you to listen carefully to the video on the link I posted above.
Random selection is a very powerful way to gather a representative sample of citizens. When these citizens deliberate on an issue, they develop a refined understand of the issues. This refined opinion is comparable to what the average person would think if given adequate time and information to think about it deeply. The huge benefit is that this happens very efficiently in terms of time investment. I appreciate the idealism of OWS, but most people don’t want to spend hours studying policy issues.
I agree with you that it is probably impractical to expect a majority of American Citizens to study the issues, in order to vote on them more wisely. But I suggest two possible compromises with this ideal:
(1) Maybe Individuals of working age, cannot find the time to study and decide upon all the issues, but they could do some? Of course they can’t earn a living and participate as Good Citizens in a Direct Democracy, as well as Our “Full Time” Paid Representatives, (at least the ones who are doing what they are supposed to be doing), but they could still contribute something of this.
(2) The More that do, the Better. Maybe a great majority of Citizen Participation can’t be , but We should include as many as will join in.
At “NI4D” there is already a well considered proposal for the establishment of a council to guide and facilitate Direct Democracy activities. All additional True Citizens who wish to participate in American Government as a Direct Democracy, should be able to join this council. The Hope being an ever increasing level of Good Citizenship Participation in the affairs of Our Nation. Even unto the establishment of the “Third House Of Congress”, (the final house), with thousands, if not millions of “Seats of Responsibility”. Even if this grows to where a seat can only be occupied by a new participant each day. I can see a “Great Line Camp” of Responsible Americans awaiting their turn outside Congress.
Issues in Scaling Civilization: The Altruism Problem
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2012/02/issues-in-scaling-civilization-altruism.html
The Chagora Model: Scaling Speech
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2012/01/chagora-model-scaling-speech-and.html
Very interesting, Tom. Thanks for sending. I take your point to be, at least on the second one, that we can engage citizens usefully at a large scale through technology and thereby improve governane. However, the idea of using money to vote for our preferences is the exact idea I was advocating against; we don’t want to merely use politics to aggregate existing preferences, as the market does.
I understand the motive behind ending money in politics. I wish it could be done. Perhaps eventually it can be… but the problem is actually rooted in the very origins of money itself.
Decision Technologies: Currencies and the Social Contract
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/07/decision-technologies-currencies-and.html
The speech-related microtransaction is a FUNDAMENTAL NECESSITY for scaling speech.
This does not suggest that it shouldn’t be regulated, transparent and limited.
The capability offered by the microtransaction may even be MORE important for the donor because it becomes a means of ongoing and frequent participation in the political process with others which (I believe) creates a ‘civic consciousness’ that other mechanisms will not be able to accomplish.
And then there’s this:
This system can be up quickly… it doesn’t need to await the duopoly’s co-operation or consent.
If your goal is to end all money in politics… (which I believe is impossible) or the public finance of all or part of elections (which is a good idea but would be better implemented via a system such as I suggest… directly to citizens for THEM to choose who should be publicly financed)…
Then… perhaps paradoxically… this is also the best path.
We’re dealing with a very ancient problem here…
The Foundations of Authoritarianism
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/05/foundations-of-authoritarianism.html
I might even go so far as to say that the network I envision is a necessity ultimately as the best guarantor against oligarchy and despotism… (provided the network itself has TOS guaranteeing fundamental rights).
I’d also suggest that its an important element in localizing politics.
Why Politics MUST be Localized
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-politics-must-be-localized.html
Finally, I very much respect your position. I only hope that I will be given the opportunity to make this case.
Money in politics is a problem. But in order to solve that you need to understand its roots:
Decision Technologies: Currencies and the Social Contract
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/07/decision-technologies-currencies-and.html
Money’s very roots are in trying to resolve the dilemma in scaling decision beyond Dunbar’s Number.
However in scaling the original human “Dunbar’s sized network” into networks of networks (civilization)…
We encountered an additional problem arising with the altruism dilemma:
The Foundations of Authoritarianism
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/05/foundations-of-authoritarianism.html
I contend that the speech-related micro-transaction is a FUNDMENTAL NECESSITY FOR SCALING CIVILIZATION.
Not just a good idea… not just one way of addressing current political problems… and not as a means of further enriching the campaign services industry (which promotes a lizard-brain, commercial approach to political advertising)
But an absolute necessity for developing a healthy political culture.
I’d argue that eventually this system drastically will not only REDUCE the amount of money in politics… and especially its dominance by narrow interests… but advance the public finance of elections (which would best be implemented via this system… directly to citizens for their own distribution to candidates of their own choice.)
And further that the resulting citizen’s network becomes a vital tool for political localization.
Re-Igniting the Enlightenment: On Building Landscapes for Decision
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2010/12/re-igniting-enlightenment-on-building.html
I distrust people who advocate peaceful discussion on the internet. I firmly believe that some people on the other side are evil and will use any information that they glean from that discussion to undermine the position of my friends by twisting it into something other than what they intend. At the center there is only massively overcooked spaghetti. Twisted thinking that turns into mush at the slightest poke of examination.
Paul,
I think you make a fair point. There are good reasons to push for strong positions and demand accountability from our politicians. This is an issue I’m going to write about next week. Thanks for the nudge.
Nate
I think this interesting article by Nate Loewentheil, is stimulating about a couple of important issues that comes with the territory of politics.
Compromise can be good, in the sense that it can at least be steps in the right direction…especially when both “sides” of an issue can gain something from the action. And very especially if the entire nation can benefit from the compromise. A good compromise would be one that afforded a gain for something perceived needed by one party and that gain did not dampen what the other side gained. Win Win…again hopefully for as many as possible.
There can be bad compromise too. One that is designed to only benefit the compromising politicians involved in the struggle of the issue. This is found in the “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” backroom deals that do little for the nation as a whole, but advances personal wealth. It would be great if We The People could find a way to stop this abuse of Our Political Processes. Maybe the solution here is an increasing enlightened involvement in the operation of Our Nation in a well designed Direct Democracy Process.
But there is an odd thing in this article that I would like to address. The author wrote:
“If we simply elect our politicians based on our normative preferences, and forbid them from ever compromising on their positions, we are essentially enacting a form of direct democracy. Such a system forbids citizens from finding common ground, and instead yields intractable conflicts that are resolved only through the symbolic violence of direct majority rule.”
It is True, the form of Direct Democracy looked at here, (If that is really what it is) seems lacking in sufficient communicative skills and reason. Too little time is given the participating Citizens to discuss, explore and reasonably solve the differences, (if this is possible) of the issue. Direct Democracy must almost always be given the time it takes to implement this government process. I say “almost” because there sometimes is NO time to argue an issue…such as invasion by foreign military forces.
Majority rule is a time honored method of decision making. But the greater the majority toward the seemingly impossible 100% consensus, the better. A 51% percent majority is weak and indicates insufficient time and energy has been spent on the issue. Be wary of acting on hard divisions of ideas and needs. The American Civil War tells Us that. A return to discussion is indicated here.
The “RousseauVille fiction” is an example of a too hastily made governmental decision. I hope We The People Of America will do better than that when the time comes.
I think this interesting article by Nate Loewentheil, is stimulating about an important issue that comes with the territory of politics.
Compromise can be good, in the sense that it can at least be steps in the right direction…especially when both “sides” of an issue can gain something from the action. A good compromise would be one that afforded a gain for something perceived needed by one party and that gain did not dampen what the other side gained.
There can be bad compromise too. One that is designed to only benefit the compromising politicians involved in the struggle of the issue. This is found in the “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” backroom deals that do little for the nation as a whole, but advances personal wealth. It would be great if We The People could find a way to stop these abuses of Our Political Processes. This would be a worthy goal for Direct Democracy.
But there is an odd thing in this article that I would like to address. The author wrote:
“If we simply elect our politicians based on our normative preferences, and forbid them from ever compromising on their positions, we are essentially enacting a form of direct democracy. Such a system forbids citizens from finding common ground, and instead yields intractable conflicts that are resolved only through the symbolic violence of direct majority rule.”
It is True, the form of Direct Democracy looked at here, (If that is really what it is) seems lacking in sufficient communicative skills and reason. Too little time is given the participating Citizens to discuss, explore and reasonably solve the differences, (if this is possible) of the issue. Direct Democracy must almost always be given the time it takes to implement this government process. I say “almost” because there sometimes is NO time to argue an issue…such as invasion by foreign military forces.
Majority rule is a time honored method of decision making. But the greater the majority toward the seemingly impossible 100% consensus, the better. A 51% percent majority is weak and indicates insufficient time and energy has been spent on the issue. A return to discussion is indicated here.
The “RousseauVille fiction” is an example of a too hastily made governmental decision. I hope We The People Of America will do better than that when the time comes. Thank you Mr. Loewentheil, for this well thought and written article.
Hi Occupysonoradan,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I take your point to be there are times when compromise doesn’t work. For example, times of war, or times when the compromises are actually tit-for-tat trades between politicians. Ferreting out those moments and holding politicians accountable is critical. My example is highly stylized and makes a lot of assumptions about politics which aren’t true in practice; I should have specified that this was all in the situation where politicians were acting on genuine principle. Which, I admit, may be vanishingly rare in the real world. Thanks again.
Nate