Compromise is built into the heart of our American form of
government. Going all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, we’ve
had disagreements over what makes us a people. In fact, Thomas Jefferson
originally castigated the king over the issue of the slave trade, but was
forced to take out the language out of fear of the union dissolving. Yet
despite such incidents of hard negotiating, America has emerged stronger.
The system of checks and balances necessitates a bargaining between the federal branches. Due to the partial independence of the
legislative, executive, and judicial, it would be incredibly difficult for one
group to control all three at the same time. Elections also play a factor;
congressmen and senators’ terms rarely overlap as the lengths of terms themselves
are different. Even if a populist movement gained traction for a number of
years, you’d still have to wait for the Supreme Court justices to literally die out before having complete control over all facets of government.
Of course, the largest aspect of compromise that is embedded
into our great society is the constitution itself. The founding fathers wisely
enacted a document that not only stood the test of time from a literary and
poetic level, but from the basis of rule of law as well. They also helped forge
the “Great Compromise” over the competing Virginia and New Jersey plans, and
amazingly balanced the issue of states’ rights and national governance.
The biggest test of America’s ability to compromise was one
of colossal proportions: slavery. It would be fair to say that politics would
be defined by this issue for generations. Even here, the federalists’ brilliance
was absolute. North and South wrung their hands together and bit a nasty
bullet on the issue of polling slaves as part of the population, also known as
the three-fifths compromise. Abolitionists hated the deal because it counted
slaves as in the general populace, while keeping them enslaved. Yet southerners
hated it because they didn’t get the representation they wanted. However, it
will be argued that if everyone’s angry, maybe you’re doing something right
legally.
Looking for modern day examples of national compromise is an
easy task. Just look at abortion, an explosive topic. Both sides, pro-life and
pro-choice, are adamant in their beliefs and can be vitriolic in their dealings
with each other. You might think that an issue involving aborting a fetus would
be pretty black or white, but that isn’t the case practically. While the
Supreme Court ruled abortion constitutional in the 70’s, it did not rule that
limitations couldn’t be put in place. Case in point, conservative states
have enforced very stringent regulations on the practice, like teenagers having
to inform their parents before an abortion can be performed, and that the
operation itself can only be done at a certain gestation period. The Hyde
Amendment, as adopted by congress, also bans direct federal funding of
abortion.
It could be asked if all this compromising makes our country
resistant to change. This is true, but only to a degree. Madison in Federalist
Ten successfully argued that mob rule, or a direct democracy, would result in
chaos and perhaps even an untimely death. He saw the value of a republic, but
one that had the consent of the people: thus a democratic republic. While it may
take time for legislation to get approved in both chambers of congress, not get
vetoed by the president, and be ultimately upheld by the courts, it is in the
end worth it over French Revolution-like anarchy. You don’t want an unpopular
minority, a label that changes over time, to be swallowed up by the passions of
a majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment