I've been struggling to write this for several weeks. The struggle hasn't been about the content, it's been about the presentation. Our nation was founded on a series of compromises. You can go back to the Connecticut compromise, which gave us a bicameral legislature. Then there was the Missouri compromise, which set up admission of both free states and slave states to the union.
Then there were the politicians who were known for their ability to compromise. Henry Clay established himself as being The Great Compromiser. If you think about people or groups being in conflict with one another, it comes down to one simple statement. Conflict is a situation where one's needs or desires, are different from the other parties' needs or desires.
When we compromise, we're usually giving up something to get something. I describe it as "half a loaf is better than none." If I want deliver a 12 hour training class, you tell me. I only have four hours in which deliver it. So we negotiate, and reach a compromise which is, you extend the training time to eight hours, and I condense my 12 hours of content into an eight hour session. See, we each gave up something in order to reach an agreement.
For centuries, people in our country have been in conflict with one another. You had Southerners who were proslavery, and Northerners who were abolitionists. You've had management, who've taken harsh stances against organized labor. You have right wing politicians taking a stand against left-wing politicians. And pro-choice forces versus anti-abortion forces.
Not all that conflict resolves itself. Much of it continues today. But we miss opportunities to collaborate. Collaboration is different from compromise. While compromise may be the situation where half a loaf is better than none, collaboration is searching for win-win situations, where both parties are able to have their needs met.
Here's a concrete example of collaboration. I have 12 hours of training I need to deliver to your group. Your group must be able to service customers and they can't be taken away from their desks for 12 consecutive hours of training. We agree to have the training delivered over four day of three hours a session. we collaborated on a solution where both needs were met.
So the thing that's missing in our society when it comes to the "really big issues," is a lack of collaboration. Take a look at some issues that are close to your heart. Are there opportunities when it comes to that issue where it would be worth collaborating with someone who disagrees with you?
It probably sounds naïve to even suggest this. Look at the alternative. Were faced with situations in politics, in our daily life, where it's easier to take sides, then it is to find common ground. The adversarial relationships we engage in do nothing to engender trust. It's only through a mutual understanding of what both our needs are that were able to find common ground and establish some trust. The environment has become just too toxic even take these first steps towards understanding. For many in power, maintaining the status quo allows them to retain that power.
Let me give you a really tangible example of where collaboration could be really effective. The labor dispute between the NFL and its players is a situation where billionaire owners and millionaire players are quibbling over the distribution of $1 billion. Professional football's extremely popular sport in the United States. Tens of millions of fans follow it. Millions of fans pay tickets to watch it in stadia. So for the NFL and the players union, the win-win is not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. A federal mediator that is working with both parties and will help them recognize and understand the win-win nature of coming up with a new collective bargaining agreement. Both parties will have to agree to areas where there are win-win situations, and there may also be in need to compromise on areas that are not win-win situations.
People from both sides of the political spectrum have to recognize that there are areas where everyone has common ground, and they need to work together in those areas. When that happens, particularly in the halls of government, trust will start to be built, and then bipartisanship may be able to be achieved. But until this collaboration, don't expect much to change. What do you think about this?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Christine Macdonald
Dianne Schuch - Lindsey
Jacob Sugarman
V.Corso
Beth Ingalls
snarkychaser
Salon.com
Comments
and the solution will be about compromise and that is all.
Why? and at what cost
rated with hugs
Collaboration is often a very difficult notion to describe because it's meaning is often assumed AND it's much more abstract than compromise.
So you've tackled a difficult subject well. Be interesting to see what people say. I don't know how to address this. But my belief is that its important.
As for the NFL dispute, the solution is to give me the $1B. The labor dispute goes away. I'm a billionaire. Now that's a win-win.
But there is another lesson in the story of Henry Clay, and that is that some things should not be compromised. I'd say slavery is at the top of that list. In fact, it was the Founders cowardice in the face of that "execrable commerce" as Jefferson called it, that guaranteed a Civil War. All Clay's compromises did nothing to prevent that war; they only postponed it -- and one can make the case that they prolonged it.
It may be a stretch, but I'd argue that we are dealing with a kind of slavery these days, too, an economic slavery if you will. Given that, it seems to me there should be no compromise with those who want to gut unions -- which are, after all, a form of democracy -- and put an end to collective bargaining.
Nor should there be any compromise with those who seem to feel they are a privileged class deserving of million-dollar bonuses "earned" on other people's misery. The very least we can do is tax such ill-gotten gain to the point it is no longer desirable to sell your soul and debase your humanity to attain it. Personally, I think the economy will do just fine -- and in fact do much better -- without the folly of wealth without limit or conscience.
And finally (aren't you glad?), there should be NO compromise with those who propagate and promote scurrilous lies and engage in base character assassination. I don't think it's necessary to name names, but I will -- Beck, Limbaugh, Murdoch, Ailes, Huckabee, Newt, Palin, Bachmann ... I think you catch my drift.
However, I think that a willingness to compromise is becoming a thing of the past politically (and notice here that I am differentiating between government and politics). I see too many instances where there's an institutional intransigence which sees win/lose and lose/lose as preferrable to win/win. And it's scary.
Scanner -- Well, that tactic isn't working as well as perhaps Scott Walker has hoped.
Stim -- Your NFL solution is an elegant one.
Tom -- The people you mention are wielding the wedges to divide us. we need to to talk to our neighbors, who we can at least engage. The group you mentioned are unreachable. Thanks for the thoughtfulness and depth with which you responded.
Catherine -- thanks for your comments. finding common ground requires effort. Americans don't want to expend effort these days.
Leon -- I admire your ability to be succinct.
Red nose -- Thanks.
I think that the constant demonization of our opponents, rather than seeing them as worthy, makes it impossible to collaborate. Not only do we need to understand that we all have mutual interests and common ground, we have to understand that to have a different view of what's best is not necessarily the making of evil.
I spent most of law school sandwiched between two doctors, Michael and Heinz. Both were respected professionals with a few gray hairs. One was an immigrant liberal and one a homegrown old school conservative. Stunningly smart men who already had successful careers. I came to respect how hard both of them worked and what entitled them to their opinions. Likewise, Heinz came to see that feminism might in some way protect his daughters from things that his conservatism would not. Michael came to understand Heinz's view of the responsibility for using his assets properly and well. We looked at one another's views respectfully and sometimes we agreed to disagree but we worked cooperatively and made it through law school as friends who made each other better because we listened and we worked together. Why isn't that kind of cooperation and collaboration used more often? I wish I knew. It seemed natural at the time.
I see no such respect being offered by the high number of liberal persuasion here on OS; nor by the smaller number of conservatives here. The name calling is so bad that it almost brings a smile to my fact to think that some foolish people actually believe the things they are saying. This kind of thing destroys the respect that is needed for the two sides to even begin a dialogue that could lead to compromise/collaboration.
Unfortunately, without that ability to work with each other they are dooming the nation to dissolution and self-destruction.
Step back and take a deep breath folks, that "enemy" over there is a fellow American - not an enemy. Just someone you disagree with about some things. Things that can be ironed out ONLY when you can cool down and get back to bargaining with the mutual respect that is due you both.
Your own friendly (and respectful) Canadian observer.... ;-)
.
For example the cops were outside ticketing people at the intersection and we both agreed that that was a good way to raise money. We were so amazed that we agreed and so happy. There is always hope.
I agree with Roger that too much reliance on compromise has destroyed a lot of legislation that could have been useful if it wasn't so watered down. On the other hand, refusal to compromise, as we're seeing in Wisconsin, can create even disastrous results.
Collaboration offers another way, although it's not the easiest or most intuitive road to follow. I wish that more of our legislators could learn and practice it. We could be much better off as a result.