Compromise shouldn’t be a dirty word
Russia’s information warfare campaign against the United States began with the goal, in the words of the Mueller report, of “sowing discord in the U.S. political system.”
The Russians undoubtedly see their continuing campaign as a spectacular success, judging by the way Americans are at each other’s throats these days, on impeachment and other topics.
In an effort to help heal the nation’s wounds and identify areas of agreement on major issues, USA TODAY and the nonprofit group Public Agenda are partnering on a yearlong project called Hidden Common Ground.
The commentary portion of the project includes columns by centrist voices who tend to get drowned out by the partisan extremes, and by people with widely divergent views who are working together to fix a problem.
You wouldn’t know it from watching cable news, but in the last presidential election 39% of voters described themselves as moderate (versus 35% as conservative and 26% as liberal).
In the initial Public Agenda/USA TODAY/Ipsos survey for the project, more than nine of 10 said it’s important to reduce divisiveness.
So far, criticism of Hidden Common Ground has focused on two questions:
❚ Isn’t it ludicrous to talk about compromise when my side is 100% right and the other side is 100% wrong?
❚ Isn’t it hypocritical for the Editorial Board to support common ground solutions while endorsing the polarizing act of impeachment?
The short answers are no and no. It’s true that agreement is difficult when one side won’t accept basic facts. It’s also true that certain issues involving basic moral beliefs or human rights don’t lend themselves to split-the-difference solutions. But many others do.
On immigration, for example, there’s clearly common ground to be found between open borders on one side and mass deportations on the other. The long-obvious deal would pair better border security with a pathway to legality for millions of undocumented immigrants already interwoven in American society.
On health care, there’s common ground between mandatory “Medicare for All” and repealing Obamacare. One idea is to preserve private insurance but improve the Affordable Care Act by adding a public option or letting certain
people under 65 buy into Medicare.
On climate change, there’s common ground between do-nothing denialism and a Green New Deal that unrealistically attempts to remake the entire economy. A tax on carbon emissions, with the proceeds refunded to consumers, would make green energy more competitive.
On these and other public policy questions, to see compromise as a dirty word simply ensures that nothing gets done and problems fester.
As for impeachment, it can be argued that President Donald Trump — with his name-calling, erratic edicts and dismissal of science — is himself the biggest impediment to finding common ground at the federal level. (In our tradition of giving readers more than one side of an issue, our editorial endorsing the two articles of impeachment was accompanied by an “opposing view” from the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.)
In fact, impeachment and deal-making aren’t incompatible. Conditions are ripe for successful negotiations because both sides have an interest in demonstrating cooperation.
Heading into an election year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to show that congressional Democrats can do more than impeach. Trump wants to show that he’s not paralyzed or consumed by that process.
Just in the past week, Democrats and Republicans have reached agreement on a major trade deal, passed by the House on Thursday, and an array of thorny budget issues, including $425 million to help states improve election security. Imagine how much better off the nation would be if they could manage to keep it up.