Compromise is not a starting position. Compromise is an outcome.
Representation starts with conviction.
The Myth of Compromise
One of the most popular lines candidates use when running for office is “I want to work across the aisle” or “I want to compromise.” “I want to bring both sides together.” It sounds reasonable. It sounds mature. And in practice, it is often a trap for weakness and failure.
I say that as someone who loves debate. I studied politics. I seriously considered law school. I enjoy arguments for their own sake. I consume right-wing media, left-wing media, centrist commentary, and everything in between because I believe intellectual curiosity makes you sharper, more empathetic, and better informed. Exploring ideas, morals, ethics, and ideology is healthy. It makes you smarter.
But there is a massive difference between intellectual exploration and governing.
A representative is not elected to endlessly explore ideas. A representative is elected to pick a position, fight for it, and deliver results for their constituents.
When a candidate runs on “seeing both sides” as their core message, what I hear is this: I do not believe strongly in anything, and I am afraid to upset people. That is not leadership. That is paralysis.
You cannot genuinely believe in everything. If you do, you believe in nothing. A friend to everyone is a friend to no one, and in politics, that mindset guarantees the status quo.
Compromise is not a starting position. Compromise is an outcome.
Compromise emerges after people with real convictions fight for what they believe is right. In Congress, in statehouses, and in city councils, compromise happens because people refuse to move unless they get something meaningful. It is forged through tension, not politeness.
Starting from the middle is not wisdom.
I fell into this trap myself early on. When you first run for office, you worry about alienating voters. You worry about sounding too strong. You worry about being labeled. So you soften your language. You talk about unity. You talk about finding common ground. You tell yourself it sounds responsible.
What it really signals is that you have not done the hard work of figuring out what you actually stand for.
Pick any serious issue and try to legislate from a place of deliberate vagueness. You end up pleasing no one, changing nothing, and preserving a system everyone claims to hate. That is how we get endless gridlock paired with endless campaigning.
Understanding opposing arguments is not weakness. Changing your mind when evidence demands it is not weakness. Running for office without firm convictions is. Oh… being “against the other person” is not a conviction.
There is also a difference between two kinds of centrists. One kind looks at the best ideas on the left and the right and deliberately chooses policies that work, even if that angers partisans. That takes courage. The other kind avoids conflict entirely. They call themselves independent but cannot articulate a position without retreating into platitudes. They are easily swayed because they never anchored themselves to anything solid.
Those are not the people you want representing you when decisions actually matter.
Leadership requires accepting that some people will never vote for you. It requires standing up to donors, party structures, and loud minorities. It requires the courage to say, “This is what I believe, and this is what I will fight for,” even when it costs you politically.
Being nice to everyone is not political skill. Avoiding hard stances is not strategy. Shaking hands and kissing babies without being able to clearly articulate your positions is not savvy. Voters see through it, even if they cannot always explain why.
If you want to hold office, you owe people clarity. You owe them conviction. You owe them the honesty to say what you believe and the backbone to defend it. Shit… you owe it to yourself.
Exploration belongs in classrooms and conversations. Governing requires decisions.
If you cannot pick a position and stand on it, you are not ready to represent anyone.
Are you an ANGRY DEMOCRAT? If so, the please share with other Angry Dems.
I agree. Our problems are complex. Healthcare, income inequality, Ai, etc. We need leaders who understand our problems and have solutions. Those solutions may have to change to compromise with the opposition, but at least we have a starting point.Something we firmly believe, informed and tested or researched by experts. The jobs guarantee for example. Medicare for all for example. Republicans have convinced us that government isn’t the answer, but we know from the great depression and WWII that when emergencies arise, we must think boldly. We must work together. The fact that much of our population is working at a near minimum wage, a wage that hasn’t been updated for many years is an emergency.
Matt has a good perspective here, but it needs to go further. Compromise as an outcome is often corrupted by unprincipled self-interest. Each of us needs to examine our principles and positions with a clear eye on how our own interests might affect the mapping from principles to what positions we take. Our positions often betray our principles. Such is the case with what is perhaps the most fundamental issue of our time: taxes. Everyone hates to pay taxes, but if we don't recognize that a fair tax system is one of the foundations of a just society - and tailor our positions accordingly - we don't really value a just society.
I'm not sure when Republicans decided that we didn't need to pay for the government services we get, but I do remember a time when they knew that the bills do come due and that the bills do have to be paid. They've long wanted to cut spending to keep taxes low, but at least they recognized that to build roads, send our kids to school, and defend the country, we have to pay for it. Even George H. W. Bush recognized that his "no new taxes" pledge had to give way to this reality, and signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990. His signing the bill may have cost him the 1992 election, but he did the right thing.
If one looks at the history of taxes in the US over the past century, two things are obvious: (1) when there were crises, the people and the government generally rose to the occasion, making the sacrifices necessary to meet the crisis and taxing to pay for it, and (2) in those cases where the government failed to tax to pay for the crisis, there were ugly consequences. In 1932, top marginal tax rates increased to 63% on the equivalent of around $20 million in today's dollars from the 1920s top rates of 25%. In 1936, the 63% bracket held, still at around $20 million current dollars, but higher rates were added up to 79% for those making around $100 million in today's dollars. During World War II, the top rates reached 94% on incomes greater than around $4 million dollars. All of these high tax rates were to pay for what most in the nation agreed were worthwhile expenditures, i.e., pay for what you get. The top rate stayed at 91% into the 1960s, helping pay down the debt from WW II and the Korean War, build the Interstate Highway system, and way more missiles and bombs than we needed in hindsight, but were thought to be prudent expenditures at the time.
In 1964, the "Kennedy tax cuts" were passed, reducing the to rates to 70% on income over about $2 million in today's dollars. The top rate stayed at 70%, but inflation reduced the effective value of the income where the top rate kicked in to a little over $1 million by 1977, when indexing was implemented. The inflation of the late 1960s and 1970s is the story of when we didn't tax for what we wanted. In the late 60's the Johnson and Nixon administrations tried to hide the cost of the Vietnam War. Then Nixon jawboned Arthur Burns into keeping interest rates lower than they should have been. This led to inflation and growth that was barely able to keep up with the inflation. Stagflation ensued until Paul Volker persuaded the Fed to endure the pain to bring inflation down to more traditional levels.
Reagan's tax cuts early in his administration balloned the deficit, and he had the nerve to partially fix it with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. He also worked with the Democrats to pass the Social Security Amendments of 1983, shoring up the Social Security system for decades. When it became clear that the Tax Reform Act of 1983 wasn't adequate to address the budget hole created by 1981 "Economic Recovery Act". Bush supported the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990. This helped lead to the first budget surplus in decades by the late 1990s.
Alan Greenspan ignored his own principle that the job of the Fed is to "take away the punchbowl" when the party gets too wild, and like Burns in the 1970s kept rate too low in the first decade of the 21 century. The party did, indeed, get too wild, and we all suffered the hangover in 2008 and most of the following decade.
Principles:
1. Pay for the government services that we agree we need.
2. People should pay for government services in proportion to their ability to pay.
3. Income is income, and wealth is wealth. Ability to pay is based on both.
Positions logically following from these principles:
1. Return to the tax rate structure instituted by the "Kennedy tax cuts".
2. Tax investment income the same as wages. There is no reason why someone should pay lower taxes on dividends or capital gains than on the wages from work.
3. Eliminate the Social Security cap. Extend Social Security taxes to investment income.
4. Eliminate glaring loopholes (carried interest exception), limit and phase out loopholes that people have made long term decisions in reliance on those loopholes (limit mortgage interest deductions to a normal sized house/mortgage and reduce that limit by something like 3%/year so that in 30 years, there is no mortgage interest deduction)
5. Remain flexible - if the Kennedy tax cut structure isn't adequate to pay down the debts built up by both Republicans and Democrats since the Clinton era, increase them. If the debt declines to the point that our payment of interest on the debt as a percentage of our annual budget is in the same magnitude as the interest rate on 30 year treauries, start reducing taxes across the board, not just on the top brackets.
If Warren Buffet paying a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary doesn't make you angry, if Elon Musk paying something in the neighborhood of 3% of his income in taxes when you're paying 15, 20, or 30% of your income in taxes doesn't make you angry, Democrat or Republican, then you've been duped. We have a lot of complicated issues that our government needs to solve or at least help solve. The solutions would be a lot easier, if we taxed everyone fairly.