Compromise is not always good, argument is not always bad

Townhall.com ^ | May 25, 2005 | Jonah Goldberg

[T Lady]

"We have lifted ourselves above politics," declared West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd after the "fantastic fourteen" agreed to a compromise on filibusters (note: quotation marks are intended to convey sarcastic scorn).

Here's a rule of thumb nobody's bothered to lay out because it's so obvious: When someone like Byrd says he's lifted himself above politics, watch your wallet.

Now, as they say, the Senate can get back to "the people's business." Which means, as far as Byrd is concerned, getting back to the business of transferring the federal treasury wholesale to the state of West Virginia.

But enough about the only known surviving dinosaur from the Cretaceous period. I'm troubled by the filibuster compromise, although not so much because the Republicans seem to have settled for somewhere between a quarter and a third of a loaf. As it happens, the deal vexes a lot of liberals, too. Only time will tell who got the rawer deal here.

Nor is the worst aspect of the compromise the embarrassment the GOP brought upon itself with its inept rhetoric. Ever since they moronically coined and popularized the phrase "nuclear option," the Republicans were destined to look bad. Implicit in the phrase is the notion that the Republicans were the ones determined to do something radical and dangerous, even though it was the Democrats who were actually promising to "blow up" the Senate.

But nooooo, the Republicans had to come up with a phrase that showed how macho they are, even at the expense of conceding the better part of the argument to the Democrats. Where is the vaunted "message discipline" the Republicans are supposed to have? They couldn't simply call it the "restore Senate tradition" option? Did they just have to show off their big swinging nuclear options?

The most annoying thing about the compromise, I believe, is the logic underneath it.

First, there's the abiding faith - eternally celebrated by the press - that compromise is always and everywhere a good thing. If I say two plus two equals four, and you say two plus two equals 1 billion, is it really such a great advance to split the difference and agree that it's somewhere near 500 million? The media's love of compromise is the moral hazard that comes from always seeking both sides of an issue. The press should seek both sides, of course, but it shouldn't conclude that simply because each side has good arguments that both are right, or that splitting the difference is enlightened. The media sees such blurring as wisdom, when really it's cynicism.

A second and related annoying assumption is that arguments are bad. Whether you think the Democrats were right or the Republicans were, their disagreement over judicial nominations was healthy. It informed the public about extent of judicial power today. For the first time in a generation (at least), Democrats were speaking eloquently about the glories of constitutional tradition and the need for the Senate to curb government activism. I may disagree with the substance of many of their points, but this was a grand teaching moment for the public and both parties. But nooooo, once again, the assumption was that arguments are a danger to the republic.

I'm sorry, but the Senate is a debating society. Its job is to debate and then vote on the strength of the arguments presented. Comity and collegiality are fine, but they are supposed to elevate the arguments, not obviate them.

Besides, it is far more dangerous when democracies choose not to have arguments. This is because political arguments represent conflicts of legitimate interests and legitimate perspectives. Intellectually shabby compromises by their very nature don't settle the disagreements, they merely postpone and exacerbate them.

For example, for more than a decade there's been a growing consensus that the Supreme Court's compromise on Roe vs. Wade made things worse in this country. It robbed the people of their right to settle this question democratically in their own communities. In response, the pro-life and pro-choice movements were born, and our politics have been the worse for it. Indeed, that's the great irony here. This filibuster fight itself is the bastard of Roe vs. Wade. If the Supreme Court hadn't declared that the courts were going to decide abortion and issues like it, then judicial nominations wouldn't be nearly so high-stakes for both sides.

That would have meant forcing the Senate to do what it was meant to do: have a big argument. But that's too much to hope for if it had to come at the expense of buying gas grills and soft ice cream machines for every one of Sen. Byrd's constituents.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online, a Townhall.com member group.

©2005 Tribune Media Services

[LibertarianInExile]

"This filibuster fight itself is the bastard of Roe vs. Wade."

Goldberg demonstrates again the flaw of some commentators who believe the world began around the time they were born.

Fights over the judiciary and appointees have been going on since Washington.

[FraudFactor.com]

It looks like some weak-kneed spineless RINO Republicans and Democrats conspired to compromise away three critical clauses of our Constitution that require only a simple majority vote in the senate unless specified otherwise (50 votes plus the Vice President in the current case) to "advise and consent" to presidential judicial appointments, and to change the Senate rules. The compromised clauses of our Constitution are given below.

Some "compromises" are entirely unfair, unjust, and unacceptable. For example, suppose Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers' Party imposed a "compromise" upon their Jewish victims, and mass-murdered only 3 million Jews in the Holocaust instead of 6 million Jews. Hitler and his Nazis could claim they achieved a "compromise", which would still be entirely unfair, unjust, and unacceptable. Obviously, the Jewish position of murdering zero Jews would be the only fair, just, and acceptable outcome.

This example disproves the claim made by some people that in any dispute between two parties, the reasonable solution is a compromise position that lies somewhere in the middle between the positions claimed by each side.


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.


Article I, Section 3, Clause 4:

Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.


 - Michael D. Robbins,   FraudFactor.com

   Support Redistricting Reform For Better Government !

[papertyger]

Goldberg demonstrates again the flaw of some commentators who believe the world began around the time they were born.

Fights over the judiciary and appointees have been going on since Washington.

You do him an injustice. He's absolutely correct about THIS fight. To ignore this fact is to ignore a qualitative difference.

[LibertarianInExile]

"You do him an injustice. He's absolutely correct about THIS fight. To ignore this fact is to ignore a qualitative difference."

He is correct that this filibuster fight is simply the logical extension of politicization of the judiciary. The problem is that he ignores the fact that it didn't start with Roe, as do most folks, because this board seems to generally think that the role of the justices is to reverse Roe by ruling that abortion is not only not a fundamental right, it's murder.

Murder it may be, but murder is punished under state laws, not federal ones. Reversing Roe ought to result in more federalism, not more federal judiciary power-grabbing. And appointing conservative judges does not mean a new reign of conservative authoritarianism. Unless we simply want the pendulum to swing the other way again someday, and make abortion not only legal, but start preparing for liberal justices to rule that laws which force abortion are legal, too.

The solution to this problem is not simply "outjudiciarying" them. It's permanently and clearly limiting the size of the federal government as we do.

[papertyger]

No one on the right is asking for anything more than original intent judges. The Schiavo case is a red herring. Federalism is the one thing we do NOT have under the current state of affairs.

[LibertarianInExile]

"No one on the right is asking for anything more than original intent judges."

Would that this were true. Too many on the right think the reversal of Roe would end legalization of abortion in the U.S. They will be extremely disappointed and angry when they find this is untrue. And it is a larger number than you think.

[papertyger]

Would that this were true. Too many on the right think the reversal of Roe would end legalization of abortion in the U.S. They will be extremely disappointed and angry when they find this is untrue. And it is a larger number than you think

How can you possibly substantiate this statement?

[LibertarianInExile]

"How can you possibly substantiate this statement?"

I can't reach into my butt and pull out numbers for you, cause I'm no pollster and I don't feel like doing that which I think would solidly demonstrate what I opine (i.e., ask the RTL ping list what they expect from the Bush appointees on the issue of abortion and see how many say 'overturning Roe, banning abortion.') but I'd love to see a REAL poll on the topic, and I strongly believe this to be true based on my experiences here--admittedly anecdotal. The left has done such a good job pushing the idea that Roe stands for legal abortion that far too many on the right think without Roe there is no legal abortion.

[GraceCoolidge]

I was thinking about this yesterday... when you look back at history, you don't see too many famous compromises that ended well. Abortion is one example, but I was thinking of the legislative compromises over slavery as well. Has any historical figure ever been celebrated as "the Great Compromiser"? I think perhaps Clay or Webster had the title at one time, but it doesn't seem to wear well. These deals don't seem to stand up well to the scrutiny of history, do they?

[Tolik]

Jonah Goldberg:

...The most annoying thing about the compromise, I believe, is the logic underneath it.

First, there's the abiding faith - eternally celebrated by the press - that compromise is always and everywhere a good thing. If I say two plus two equals four, and you say two plus two equals 1 billion, is it really such a great advance to split the difference and agree that it's somewhere near 500 million? The media's love of compromise is the moral hazard that comes from always seeking both sides of an issue. The press should seek both sides, of course, but it shouldn't conclude that simply because each side has good arguments that both are right, or that splitting the difference is enlightened. The media sees such blurring as wisdom, when really it's cynicism....

Nailed It!

    This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.

       Besides this one, I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[.cnI redruM]

Already posted...

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200505250806.asp

[Valin]

Whether you think the Democrats were right or the Republicans were, their disagreement over judicial nominations was healthy. It informed the public about extent of judicial power today.

That's why the democrats wanted this to go away.

[Valin]

But it is about Roe vs. Wade, and the upcoming USSC nomination.

For what its't worth (IMO) this hasn't gone away

[Alia]

Ah, yes... "conflict resolution" is "taught" in the pub ed schools... and the MSM aids and abets such obnoxious programs under the guise of "multi-culti, tolerance". (In this particular instance... "minority party").

They figure on a "compromise" between brawling, spatting parties. In theory, it works -- except when the Dem's favorite issues comes in: race, gender, religion. Witness the ugly in "conflict resolution" (aka: compromise") in CA pub ed classrooms. I think it's partly to blame for the school riots. There is a racial/gender heirarchy in CA. So.. who do you think wins in these classrooms"? Not justice. Nor truth. The classroom "compromise" often ends with a behind the scenes, off the school premise gangland. Race, gender, non-gender but transfigured... and it provides the MSM with MORE NEWS TO REPORT ON AND WHY WE NEED MORE SOCIALISM IN THE CLASSROOM. I mean, ahem, the courts...

Yah. Compromise. Bah. Fey. MSM loves compromise because it means they get more "troubles" and "bad news" to report on in order to fuel their incomes and present the liberal agenda to the public.

[.cnI redruM]

Big time. I think the initial reaction of Charles Schumer to a flood of conservative nominees was honest terror. He realized that he had been hoisted on his own petard. For decades, judicial activism had more or less quietly made the US a less democratic country.

Schumer realized that these judges were also going to be De facto lawmakers. Given that they would probably legislate from the bench in a manner he didn't approve of, he slammed on the breaks to keep them from being in power. It was only after he stopped and took deep breath that he realized that he had just about let the cat out of bag on our federal judges now being a lot more powerful than the Constitution originally intended.

[Tolik]

I think it won't go away too far.

It's hard to expect smart moves from the stupid party, but the right move would be to present all judges' nominations now and pressure Dems to keep the agreement while publics still remembers.

[Valin]

It's hard to expect smart moves from the stupid party,


And yet I remain hopeful.

[P_A_I]

Jonah writes:

Besides, it is far more dangerous when democracies choose not to have arguments. This is because political arguments represent conflicts of legitimate interests and legitimate perspectives.

Jonah, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and after 200 years we shouldn't need to argue about our Constitutions intent.

Intellectually shabby compromises by their very nature don't settle the disagreements, they merely postpone and exacerbate them. For example, for more than a decade there's been a growing consensus that the Supreme Court's compromise on Roe vs. Wade made things worse in this country.
It robbed the people of their right to settle this question democratically in their own communities.

Roe was not a 'compromise' Jonah. It was a bold constitutional statement that women have the right to decide to abort early term pregnancies, and that if States/localities disagreed, - such abortions must be tried as murder.
There is no 'democratic community right' to decree that early term abortion is murder. Juries decide that question in America.

In response, the pro-life and pro-choice movements were born, and our politics have been the worse for it.

Our politics are 'for the worse' because constitutional principles are being ignored.

Indeed, that's the great irony here. This filibuster fight itself is the bastard of Roe vs. Wade. If the Supreme Court hadn't declared that the courts were going to decide abortion and issues like it, then judicial nominations wouldn't be nearly so high-stakes for both sides.

The supreme court was forced to decide issues like abortion because State/local governments have been, and still are, ignoring the Constitution/Bill of Rights in writing laws that restrict individual liberties.

--- Jonah, if you're going to pass yourself off as a conservative commentator on Constitutional subjects, you really need to study the subject in more detail. --
Claiming 'communitarian' rights for local government is a major blunder; you've exposed the east coast liberal basis for much of your political position.

[papertyger]

can't reach into my butt and pull out numbers for you, cause I'm no pollster and I don't feel like doing that which I think would solidly demonstrate what I opine...

Funny, you didn't seem to have any problem reaching into your butt to pull out a caricature of conservatives? Frankly, your analysis reads like a very articulate adolecent telling me everything they know about Tuck-son, Arizona.