ARTICLE
Today the Regional Transportation Commission expects to adopt the final plan for allocation of funds that will be generated if November’s transportation ballot measure passes. This plan has two primary goals: first, to have the greatest-possible impact on local transportation needs and, second, to address enough of the wants of two-thirds of the likely voters to get them to vote for the ½ cent transportation sales tax. Much of our community’s capacity to thrive is dependent upon finding these sorts of political balances. Finding compromises that permit action on issues, from the tangible (such as public safety, education, and infrastructure) to the more contextual (like elements of community identity and aesthetics) is the deference between a vital community and its stagnation. Broadly, the question we must continue to answer is: “What is the nature of compromise in an increasingly decentralized and segmented political world?” The theory of political compromise provides some counsel to both elected decision makers and their electorate. A 2010 article by Any Gutmann and Dennis Thompson describes two mindsets that constrain democracies from achieving political solutions to their problems and two others that facilitate success. The constraints: An uncompromising mindset in which participants, dedicated to “principled tenacity,” are unwilling to compromise. Mutual mistrust, in which decision-makers assume that their opponents are motivated mainly by a desire to defeat them and their principles rather than to achieve a greater public good. Uncompromising Mindset. We all recognize in others and, hopefully, in ourselves - principles that guide our decisions. Sometimes these principles are founded on personal ideals, sometimes on the values of our “tribe,” and, at least occasionally, on what we perceive as an element of our indentity, itself. We hold tight to these tenants in which we sincerely believe. Many perceive their principles as non-negotiable. The obvious problem arises when confronting an issue with other decision makers who have equally ardent but opposing principles. With neither side willing to compromise principle, nothing can be accomplished. The article points out that the often-advocated “solution” to this impasse – separating interests and principles – really doesn’t work. The postulated solution of not compromising principles but, rather, reducing principles (moral values) to their constituent interests (material interests) is attractive in the abstract but dysfunctional in practice. The notion that if we can reduce a principle – say universal health care – to a material value – say guaranteed access to insurance for which the user pays – would make it easier to negotiate without forcing either side to abdicate its principles. The problem is that there isn’t much evidence that it works on hard problems. It doesn’t take long to figure out that the people who most need universal health care can’t afford insurance even if it was available. They use two examples of successful compromise – the 1986 tax reform and the Affordable Care Act – to describe how strongly held principles actually had to be compromised when efforts to trade “material interest” were not sufficient to solve the real problem. The authors found that in these political successes, strongly held principles were compromised by both sides in both pieces of legislation. In fact the acts themselves are a hodgepodge of conflicting principles, some from one camp, some from the other. It was the willingness of legislators to bundle these decidedly less-than-consistent principles into a single outcome that made “the greater good” possible. The authors argue that it is the willingness of decision makers, whether the elected or the electorate, to make trades – sacrificing a principle here to achieve a principle there, that made both the tax reform and health care legislation possible. Mutual Mistrust. This second constraint, cynicism about the motives of opponents, makes overcoming an uncompromising mindset nearly impossible. Every proposed compromise causes the mistrustful to suspect they are being tricked. It also reinforces their belief that if they kept working they could “get a better deal.” When there is mutual mistrust there is little opportunity for serious conversation. Mistrust is reinforced – and reflected – in campaigning for public office or for ballot measures. Because there are only win/lose alternatives in elections, extreme positions and accusations do sometimes win an election for one side or the other. But these positions lock the successful candidates and advocates into a position that after the election they can seldom deliver. The campaign promises are said to be “as flimsy as the paper they are written on” is a measure not only of the improbability of extreme solutions but also the unbelievability of the advocate who makes those promises. Gutmann and Thompson advocate instead for “the Compromising Mindset.” an opportunity to “adjust one’s principles to improve on the status quo.” They describe this in two notions: Principled Prudence that begins with recognition that compromise – including the sacrifice of principled positions – is usually necessary to accomplish anything of significance. Mutual Respect that counsels good faith in negotiations and restraint of suspicions about ulterior motives. Principled Prudence. Failing to compromise is, on both sides of a critical issue – a failure; it is essentially a capitulation to a status quo that is mutually perceived as not in the collective best interest. The goal of compromises is the greater good. It seeks balance that provides a net public benefit. In seeking compromises – often trade-offs that provide something of value to “both sides” such as highway improvements and the rail trail – it reflects both respect of those with whom we disagree and evidence that the process has been fair. The goal is not to achieve “purity of principles” but rather an outcome that provides value to both sides. It permits both sides to maintain their distinctive identity and to continue to press their agendas in the future. Mutual Respect. Foremost, mutual respect requires acknowledging adversaries’ good faith. Right or wrong we must believe that they are advocating for sincerely held principles. The key is believing that in a given compromise you are getting as much as you can reasonably expect to get, today, under the existing circumstances. Not perfect. Less than you want. But an identifiable net public good. Frankly, this can be difficult. We all have a defensive reflex that easily slips from “they are wrong” to “they are trying to manipulate me.” But the article cites several examples of the benefit of positive beliefs that led to real compromises and significant outcomes. More importantly, they point out that if neither side can muster respect for the other there is little chance of moving beyond the status quo. The authors recommend several strategies including building simple agreements first before addressing the “hard parts” and finding issues where small steps can be taken together. The article especially discourages exaggeration of the positions of opponents, citing the allegation of the ACA that it would create “death panels” as an example. The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission is to be commended on its effort to achieve just this sort of compromise. The proposal respects interests and values of those holding competing principles and the needs of different geographical and demographic segments. It ultimately reflects both high levels of pragmatism and a reaching for the “greater good” for residents throughout the County.