Half a Loaf is Better Than None




Over the last few months, I’ve talked about developing a personal political philosophy and putting that philosophy into practice by participating in the political system. This month, I want to offer a suggestion that some of you might find somewhat contradictory: the need to compromise in order to succeed.

I’ve been in and around the political process for a quarter-century. I’ve won elections and lost them. Many times I’ve supported candidates who share a majority of my beliefs, and some other times I’ve held my nose and voted for “the lesser of two evils.” But year in and year out, every other fall and sometimes in the spring, I troop to the polls and exercise my franchise. The way I look at it, failing to participate in the electoral process would be like handing over my citizenship papers to someone else. As far as I’m concerned, if I don’t vote, I’m relinquishing my right to complain about the outcome.

One thing I’ve learned is that candidates on the extreme ends of the political spectrum have a hard time winning elections, since a majority of voters fall somewhere toward the middle. Another thing I’ve learned is that I’d rather have someone from my party in office (who I agree with most of the time) than someone from the other party (who I disagree with most of the time).

Unfortunately, not everyone shares that philosophy. In fact, over the last 20 years, it’s seemed that more and more of the people coming into the political process have been those at the two extremes, more interested in making their point than electing their candidates. The so-called “moderate Republicans” and “conservative Democrats” have been severely outnumbered, replaced by absolutists who’d rather lose than compromise; who’d rather go down swinging, proclaiming their moral integrity, than give a little and come up victorious.

Earlier this week, I attended my local political convention. Ninety-four of us were in the room, having been elected delegates four weeks earlier at our precinct caucuses. Our goal was twofold: elect delegates to the state convention in June, and endorse the incumbent state representative for another term in the Legislature. It should have been easy, but it wasn’t. After six hours of discussion and debate, at 1:30 a.m. on a work night and with the convention deadlocked, we adjourned without endorsing, sending the incumbent and an upstart challenger to the September primary election.

The contest was between a middle-of-the-road conservative who has been in the state Legislature for 18 years, and a fiery right-winger who has consistently been on the short end of 6-1 votes on the local school board. The incumbent is a leader on environmental issues, chairing that committee in the state House, which hasn’t endeared him to the Neanderthal set, who’ve never met a landfill they didn’t like. Never mind that the incumbent has helped provide a Republican majority, ensuring a Republican speaker and Republican committee chairs. Never mind that the incumbent has a consistent (if not perfect) record cutting taxes and holding the line on public spending. Apparently good isn’t good enough; nothing short of 100 percent loyalty to the conservative special-interest groups is good enough for the absolutists.

I’m not saying that you should compromise on your beliefs; I’m saying that, whether you like it or not, at some point reality enters into the picture, and it’s better to have half a loaf than none at all. Those who hold out for the whole enchilada are oftentimes left with nothing on their plate. Those who settle for a portion of success can build upon their seemingly insignificant victory in future years.

Quick thought -- if you’re consistently finding yourself dissatisfied with the candidates put forth from your party, if you often find yourself complaining that those candidates aren’t loyal enough to the ideals of your party, perhaps the problem isn’t them, perhaps it’s you. Consider that it may be you who is out of touch with reality and should consider moderating your views a bit to come more into line with the rest of society. Strong principles are good; unrealistic expectations are not. The best public policy is created when strong-minded individuals from a variety of backgrounds and with a multitude of interests come together and hash out their differences. Some of the worst public policy is generated when too few questions are asked during formulation.

Chances are, I wouldn’t have written this 10 or 20 years ago. When you’re young, everything is black and white. As you get older (and hopefully wiser), you see very few absolutes, just many shades of gray. When you’re young, you often have a hard time understanding how anyone can think differently than you do. As you grow older, you come to appreciate the different perspectives people offer, recognizing that it is our differences that make us interesting and unique.

Want to have some fun? Next time you get into a discussion about public policy, try taking a position on the opposite end of the spectrum. If you’re a conservative, try seeing the world through the eyes of a liberal and try arguing from that perspective. It’ll help you to understand that there are two sides to every coin, and that different doesn’t necessarily mean wrong.

Previous Articles

Determine Your Beliefs
Personal Experience

---

About the Author;
Vic Ellison, Apple Valley, Minnesota, is the father of three and the grandfather of two, and has been married for 25 years. Vic is an independent businessman with extensive backgrounds in politics and writing. He can be reached at Vic@boomerjournals.com