On Compromise

Bikes are expensive. The gear can be even more expensive. The more you get into the sport it becomes apparent how much it can cost. Most people probably don't have the income they need to jump right in and buy the cycle and all the gear that all the literature says is necessary. So, most of us compromise. We look at how we plan to ride and make informed decisions about what is really necessary. Do I really need that full carbon frame with top-of-the line components, or will an entry level bike suffice? Should I get everything at once, or can I make do as I add items one at a time. Clearly, there are tradeoffs. There are constraints. Costs and benefits to each decision. Compromise is hard - yes, it would be nice to have a couple of pairs of really nice bib shorts, but is it really worth the $150-250 price tag for each one? Should I spend that money on instead fixing my house or paying for gas? Or would one a step or two down that is much more reasonably priced work just as well? After all, I'm not a pro.

Compromise is even more necessary in the political realm. Here too there are tradeoffs to be made. Limits on what is possible. The real limits in government are the differing opinions among the body politic. There will always be a section of the population that wants government to do more and another group that wants it to do less. More of one thing and less of another. Without compromise on these issues, congressional work would come to a halt. Some of the basic functions of government - to make reasonable laws to provide a reliable framework for people to make decisions - wouldn't function reliably. This would create uncertainty. Has created uncertainty.

I would describe myself as a classical liberal, so my philosophy is mostly in line with libertarians. I think it would be good if the actions of government were limited to a much greater extent than they currently are. However, I recognize that many of my views on the appropriate function of government, say, my stance on drug regulation, are highly controversial and are unlikely to be enacted any time soon. Does this mean I pull a Ron Paul and refuse to vote yes on anything that doesn't completely match what I want done? Absolutely not. There are times, such as the recent debt ceiling debate, when compromise is essential.

The debt ceiling crisis was particularly annoying for me in that regard. Neither side wanted to compromise and they brought us to the brink of causing major financial upheaval. We are lucky that some planning and a lot of accidents of history have made the nation the most desirable place for other nations and people to save their money. Otherwise markets would have reacted much more harshly to the instability and uncertainty the bitter, uncompromising debates of the last few weeks have caused.

It's important to understand that raising the debt ceiling does not cause congress to spend more money. We've already agreed to spend the money in the various appropriations and entitlement bills. It's a bit like planning to spend money, and then giving ourselves permission again to spend it.

I'm thankful some form of agreement was reached, but there needs to be a lot more willingness to compromise if serious progress is to be made on fixing the debt problem. Will that mean higher taxes? Yes. Will it mean cuts to entitlement programs? Absolutely. It won't be perfect. It won't match all of your or my ideas of an ideal solution. But that's the nature of politics. Compromise must be made.

As I heard Doug Wright on KSL say recently, the only political situation where compromise is unnecessary is in a dictatorship.