One Nation

  I have found that the best way to proceed with civil discussions about issues on which people disagree is to first concur on what is important to both parties. Next determine who is harmed by each position and agree not to intentionally harm others. Last, exhibit tolerance without discarding core values.

  The Second Amendment debate is a good illustration of this process. Some people feel that there should be no restrictions on the rights of citizens to have any kind of weapon they choose. They firmly believe that the Second Amendment was established to allow citizens to protect themselves from foreign or domestic threats including an out-of-control central government. They do not believe it reasonable for such a government to hold all of the powerful weapons, while they are left with only hunting rifles.

  The other side dismisses such arguments as paranoia and believes in stringent gun control and restrictions on the types of weapons and amount of ammunition individuals can possess. They believe that we could quell the epidemic of mass murders by keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of unstable individuals.

  Both sides can agree that we do not want dangerous weapons in the hands of unstable individuals and this should be the starting point of any conversation. The first group would probably agree that freedom is the most important thing, while the second group might feel that safety is the most important thing. Their discussion should center around how to preserve Second Amendment freedom while ensuring safety for the largest number of citizens. During those discussions both should agree to hold personal freedom and societal safety as their targets. Nothing should be done to intentionally affect those two things in a negative way. This is a civilized way to have a productive discussion and is the first step toward finding compromise.

  Recall that I love to say, “If two people agree about everything, one of them isn’t necessary.” Disagreement is part of being a person who has choices. One of those choices is to respect others and engage in intelligent conversation about differences of opinion without becoming enemies, eventually allowing us to move forward to compromise. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and a nation that tears itself apart will not survive.

  Action Steps

  Take the first step and offer to put your differences aside with someone you frequently argue with. Refuse to argue with them for at least one month.

  If engaged in a pointless argument, change the subject to something about which there is agreement.

  Try to conceive of a plan that might work for both sides when you see the next political argument on television.

  Try listening twice as much as talking since you have two ears and only one mouth.

  THE ART OF COMPROMISE

  Without wise leadership, a nation falls; with many counselors, there is safety.

  PROVERBS 11:14

  Although we had very little money, my mother would save every penny over several years in order to be able to purchase a new car when the old one she was driving was on its last leg. She did not believe in buying used cars, because she felt that the previous owner probably would not have gotten rid of it if it was functioning optimally.

  Once when I was a teenager I went with her to look at a car. It was a beautiful vehicle, yellow with black interior and a black vinyl top. I was quite excited, because I had recently acquired my driver’s license and was already starting to imagine myself cruising down the streets of Detroit in a brand-new automobile. The problem was that the car was several hundred dollars more expensive than the cash she had on hand.

  My mother could bargain with the best of people, and after a couple of hours had worn the salesman down to the point that he was ready to make a deal after she showed him the cash. I was absolutely jubilant until I heard several days later that the salesman had lost his job for giving my mother too sweet a deal. I’m certain that if my mother had had more money, she would have been willing to compromise, but she believed in only paying cash for cars and would not qualify for a loan anyway. As a matter of principle, she did not believe in borrowing money to pay for anything other than a house, because she had seen too many people ruin their lives with financial overreach.

  Many people feel that driving a hard bargain is a sign of strength and perseverance, and in many cases they are correct. However, my mother and I learned the hard way that it is not always the kindest thing to do. My mother certainly did not intend to get the man fired and offered to give the car back, but for some reason, since the deal had already been consummated, that was not possible. While my mother was pleased she had been able to buy the car, she wished she had not pressed so hard. Sometimes compromise is the best way to go, even when you think you could get your own way without it.

  Many people have recently commented on how difficult it is to get anything accomplished in Washington anymore. The art of compromise appears to be vanishing with both political parties adopting a “my way or the highway” attitude. In much of the legislation that has been passed in the last few years, one side is pleased and the other side is disgruntled. This is an acceptable outcome, as long as each side is civil and works honestly with the other. Unfortunately today, both parties seem to be content with gridlock if they can’t get what they want and have stopped giving ground in order to be a part of an important solution. Rather than sulking, they should be seeking compromise in every possible way. For that to happen, both sides must have some incentive to move through respectful disagreement to produce an actual agreement.

  Timing Is Everything

  I remember as a child in Boston going to Haymarket Square on Saturday evenings with my mother and my aunt and uncle, as well as my brother. This was the weekly trip to buy produce and I always found it exciting, especially during the closing hour when the farmers were ready to go home and wanted desperately to avoid carrying unsold produce back home. The same sellers who a couple of hours earlier were disinclined to sell five tomatoes for a dollar were now willing to give away a dozen tomatoes for the same price. You might say they were highly incentivized to make a deal.

  In the same way, situations change for legislators and it is good to revisit issues periodically where no compromise was possible earlier. A good example of this is the fierce opposition to Medicare when it was first introduced. While some lawmakers refused it initially, it soon became apparent that there were no other good alternatives being offered, and the need for the program grew as our population began showing significant signs of aging. Over time, the incentive for compromising grew, the opposition waned, and the program was accepted by both legislative bodies.

  Starting Small

  When I was a freshman in high school, my Latin class had to break up into teams and complete a complex project depicting some important facet of the Roman Empire. I was paired with a couple of people who had always been my academic competitors and with whom I did not get along particularly well. Despite our dislike for one another, we got to work and decided to create a replica of the Roman Colosseum. We experimented with all types of ingredients and finally decided to construct walls with dough, clay, and sand. We used wire and popsicle sticks for scaffolding, and really tested our artistic talents in the creation of people and ferocious animals to populate a structure that was rather magnificent, if I do say so myself. In the process of doing the research and figuring out how to make our project structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing, we began to realize that we liked one another and started to associate as friends as much as project mates.

  I believe the same thing could happen in Washington with our legislators if they put aside their differences and worked together in a systematic fashion to solve a problem. Perhaps they could start with a small issue and work their way up gradually to large and very meaningful problems. I believe they would discover in working together that they are not nearly as different from one another as they had previously thought.

  Recent Examples of Compromise

  Interestingly enough, there already have been a number of such projects, and the records are available for our
study. We have the opportunity to see what kind of people have been representing us, and whether they are interested in serving the needs of the populace or whether they are more closely tied to the special interest groups that continue to fund their reelection. We have all the ammunition we need to make important decisions about our nation’s direction.

  In our recent history, there have been some notable events that brought both parties together with an amazing show of unity and success. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait led to a bipartisan determination to expel Saddam Hussein and his army from the land of the peace-loving people of Kuwait. Even more unity was demonstrated after our nation was attacked by radical Islamic elements on September 11, 2001. People were able to look at the big picture in these situations and quickly establish common goals that were reached through cooperative efforts. In the latter case a second war ensued that probably was not necessary, but there was bipartisan agreement on its initiation, although bitter partisan battles over the war effort later broke out.

  During the Clinton administration there was significant rancor between the two parties over efforts to reform social welfare programs. Both sides made significant concessions and successfully improved the program while decreasing the welfare rolls. At the beginning of the welfare fight, both sides were entrenched and it appeared that no progress would be made, but President Clinton exercised real leadership by sitting down with Speaker Gingrich and discussing how to make changes that would make the program affordable while still helping those individuals who were truly in need. These kinds of cooperative efforts actually led to a budgetary surplus for the first time in many years. There is absolutely no reason why the same type of success cannot be achieved today if the two sides were willing to look at the big picture and put aside pride in order to solve problems, with no one achieving total victory and no one suffering total defeat.

  Gay Marriage

  One large issue that is ripe for compromise is the issue of gay marriage. I liken the gay marriage argument to a new group of mathematicians who claim that 2 + 2 = 5. The traditional mathematicians say that 2 + 2 = 4 and always has been, and always will be 4. The new mathematicians continue to insist on their version of mathematics so the traditional mathematicians eventually relent and say, “For you guys, 2 + 2 = 5, but for us it will continue to be 4.” The new mathematicians are not satisfied with that compromise and say that 2 + 2 must also be 5 for you and everyone else and if you won’t accept that then you are a “mathist” (as opposed to a racist, sexist, or some other kind of “ist”) or mathophobe. The two sides will most likely never reach an agreement as to the actual equation. If, however, they discuss the matter rationally without demanding that political correctness silence the other’s opinions, they may move through respectful disagreement to practical compromises that are acceptable to both sides.

  I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I see no reason why any two consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, cannot be joined together in a legally binding civil relationship that provides hospital visitation rights, property rights, and so on without tampering with the definition of marriage. This would give the gay population what they want, while leaving the traditional definition of marriage intact. This is what compromise is about. The “my way or the highway” mentality on either side of the argument only leads to gridlock and animosity. This is a practical way to apply common sense to a complex social issue.

  National Debt

  Another issue where compromise is badly needed is rapidly accumulating debt. The Democrats, led by the president, appear to be relatively unconcerned about the debt and are happy to continue spending, borrowing, and expanding entitlements. The Republicans, on the other hand, are extremely concerned that we will eventually have to pay the piper if we continue to expand our national debt, and that we will burden future generations with financial obligations that will extinguish the American Dream. One side is concerned about preserving entitlements and the other is concerned about preserving our nation’s future.

  A little wisdom and some review of the actual facts would be useful in the pursuit of joint solutions. We have a $17 trillion national debt that continues to grow. We have ever-expanding entitlement programs that are extremely expensive. Small businesses are frightened of government and its plans to implement a health care system that will be expensive and intrusive. This also includes its many enforcement provisions that will be overseen by the discredited IRS, which at the time of this writing is under investigation for illegal activity. Big businesses have trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines waiting for a friendlier business environment before investing. None of us, regardless of our political philosophy, can possibly be content with such a situation. The injection of a little common sense into the discussions would prove beneficial.

  As far as the growing debt is concerned, it should be treated the same way that personal debt is treated by thinking and pragmatic families. First they assess their income and output. If the output is greater than the income, they either decrease the output, find a way to increase the income, or both. If after several months their deficit spending continues, they realize that their plan is not working and honestly reappraise and adjust it accordingly. The last thing they do is double down on an ineffective plan while sticking their head in the sand. An unwise family in this situation, however, would continue on, while stating emphatically that they were not spending as much as they had been and that eventually the budget would come under control. They would claim that it would be too painful to significantly cut down on the spending and that anyone requesting such action is obviously heartless. They would also talk about growing their income, but would not change what they were doing to make that a reality. When they saw that things were not working out according to their predictions, they would never consider that they were following an inappropriate course of action, but instead would blame others for impeding them.

  There’s no question that our government needs to cut wasteful spending. Obviously the cutting should occur in areas of duplication of services, extravagant entertainment for government officials, fraud, unnecessary programs, and so on. In the recent sequestration efforts, the current administration intentionally targeted cuts that would be felt acutely by the public who would then agree that making any cuts was too painful. Included in these cuts was elimination of White House tours for ordinary citizens. This is something that many school groups plan for years and it is not too expensive. Additionally, in light of this particular cut, many individuals and groups volunteered to provide the funds necessary to keep the White House tours open, but such offers were refused. Another cut was in TSA (Transportation Security Administration) personnel to make the experience at the airport even more painful for travelers. I personally find these tactics extraordinarily insulting to the populace’s intelligence, most of whom can easily see through this gamesmanship. The sad thing is that there are large numbers of people in American society today who are fooled by these infantile tactics and don’t question anything, as long as they get their government support.

  Much more important, however, than cutting money from the budget, is expanding the economy with resultant significant income to the government. We do not have to reinvent the wheel to accomplish this. We simply need to create a friendly environment for business and entrepreneurship and stop trying to regulate the lives of responsible American citizens. These were principles that were followed (early in American history) during the rapid expansion of business and industry throughout our nation, which rapidly propelled us to the pinnacle of the world economically.

  First of all, we need to recognize that the United States has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Our rates even exceed those of openly socialist countries. A few years ago Canada and several other countries significantly slashed their corporate rates, which had the desired effect of attracting American business. Our American leadership has talked about cutting corporate tax rates, but nothing has been d
one. We are capable of moving very quickly in a crisis, such as 9/11, but extreme lethargy characterizes our usual pace of governmental progress. This is an issue that should not be controversial for those who are socialists in our Congress.

  More controversial, however, is the issue of cutting tax rates for individuals and small businesses. The Democrats feel that those with very high incomes should pay most of the taxes since they can afford to do so. The Republicans feel that enabling people to keep the vast majority of what they earn is more conducive to growth and encourages people to work hard. Again, a little common sense goes a long way. Taxation needs to be fair for everyone and not just for a favored group. This is the reason I like the tithing model set forth in the Bible, as I mentioned earlier. As soon as you depart from a proportional taxation system, you introduce ideological bias, making arguments endless. Also, everyone must have skin in the game when it comes to taxation. People with a lot of money have a large amount of skin in the game and people with very little money only have a small amount, but everybody is taxed proportionately, which makes it fair.

  Unfairness is introduced when the tax code is riddled with loopholes that are accessible to some but irrelevant for others. Those with good tax lawyers and accountants can substantially reduce the taxes they pay, which is grossly unfair to those unable to take advantage of such things. Lowering tax rates and eliminating loopholes at the same time is a no-brainer that has been advocated by both Republicans and Democrats, but once again nothing is done. Even with the loopholes, the top 10 percent of the populace in terms of income pay 70 percent of the income taxes while earning 46 percent of the taxable income, which means they are indeed paying more than their fair share.