Compromising on Strong Opinions Isn't a Sign of Weakness




Last month’s column (“Half a Loaf is Better Than None”) generated more reader feedback than all previous BoomerJournals columns combined. Some readers agreed with my take on the political endorsement process, while others had a hard time accepting my rationale. Some respondents even accused me of being “disloyal” to the causes for which I claim fealty. It’s that mistaken notion that I intend to address this month.

For those who missed last month’s column (a link is available at the bottom of this screen), my contention is that “absolutists” do themselves and their causes more harm than good; that good governance and quality lawmaking takes into account contrasting positions, and that “different” doesn't necessarily mean “wrong.” The “ultra-whatevers” who cling to their positions come hell or high water, refusing to compromise and accept partial victories, are doomed to live in the shadows of politics, pissing and moaning about the outcomes without having much of a say about the eventual decisions.

I appreciated the effort -- if not the thought -- of the reader who emailed me a copy of Barry Goldwater’s speech from the 1964 Republican National Convention, containing the senator’s most famous quote: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice … and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” If you tried for a hundred years, you couldn’t find a better role model for “Ultras on Parade” than Barry Goldwater. And I liked the guy!

My goal this month is to demonstrate that compromising on strong opinions doesn’t necessarily mean caving in; that accepting the existence of contrary points of view doesn’t mean you can’t continue to stand firmly on your principles. Let me offer an example, using the incendiary issue of immigration policy.

I recently visited a friend in Florida, a state that has experienced profound changes over the past few decades. Once a sleepy haven for retirees and fruit farmers, Florida has been virtually overtaken by Hispanic immigrants; Miami in particular has become Havana North. As far north as Tampa, I see businesses offering bilingual signs to assist their English- and Spanish-speaking customers. My friend, and many like him, somewhat resent this intrusion. I can understand that. Change is difficult for most people. If it were up to him, immigration laws would be tightened considerably and the open-door policy offered by the U.S. would be slammed shut.

I love the fact that our nation is looked upon as a beacon of light by freedom-loving people around the world, and that the greatest goal of many of the world’s citizens is to find their way to our shore and claim their piece of the American dream. I’m proud of the fact that the Statue of Liberty stands in New York harbor, welcoming “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Whether it was the Irish or the Italians, or more recently the Cubans or the Southeast Asians, America has provided refuge to the world’s refuse and hope to its homeless. I’ve had friends who have sought their citizenship; I’ve helped teach them American history, and I’ve been there with tears in my eyes when they stood before a judge and took their oaths of allegiance. If it were up to me, we’d have as much of an open-door policy as possible.

But I recognize the inherent risk in such advocacy, and accept that a system of checks-and-balances is both appropriate and needed, particularly during a time when some foreign visitors are traveling to our shores with the intent of doing us ill. As much as I’d like to throw down the welcome mat and greet everyone with open arms, I understand that such enthusiasm must also be mixed with caution; that support for the rights of freedom-seekers must be countered with the responsibility to protect our borders.

Personally, I’d balance those rights and responsibilities by having a fairly liberal immigration policy, countered with a beefed-up reporting system for those on work permits and student visas. I’d require every foreign national to prove, on a quarterly basis, that they indeed either held a job or were attending classes, and I’d expel those who didn’t follow our laws. Equally, I’d deal harshly with illegal immigrants who sneak across our borders without registering, and punish employers and landlords who harbor them.

So, to get back to the premise for this article: some might say that the stipulations I place on immigration make my support for open borders ring hollow; that if I truly believed in openness, I’d throw open the doors and let the chips fall where they may. Does my willingness to compromise on the issue indicate that I’m wishy-washy and unprincipled? Should I stick to an absolutist position, regardless of its slim chance of becoming law or the opposition it would engender?

When it comes to politics and public policy, I’m willing to accept that I’m not infallible; that other people with contrasting opinions can be just as committed to their beliefs as I am to mine, and that the only way to accommodate our mutual interests and needs is to meet somewhere in the middle. That’s not acquiescing, that’s not “caving in,” that’s accepting reality. Good public policy results when earnest individuals hash out their differences and emerge with something both can live with (if not fully endorse).

And, as I said last month, half a loaf is better than none.

Previous Articles

Determine Your Beliefs
Personal Experience
Half a Loaf

---

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