The History of Compromise
Americans have always been inclined to join groups in order to fulfill a particular ideal. These groups stem from the abolitionists to prohibitionists, from civil service reformers to civil rights activists. But, it is also important to take into consideration an American inclination to compromise. Even before our modern American government was instituted the federalists and anti-federalists were fighting for their governmental ideals only to produce a compromise: the constitution. Compromise is essential to insure that the best option for everyone can be met. Now, I am going to briefly discuss the most important compromise in America’s history along with the consequences of a political stalemate.
The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists
The Federalists supported a strong central government with a national bank and strong ties to England (through the passage of the Jay Treaty). Opposed to the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists supported a decentralized government along with support for France over England. When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 began, both sides argued for their particular ideals. The Federalists denied any plans that did not create a strong central government while the anti-federalists boycotted the formation of any constitution out of fear that it would create a monarchy in the United States. The anti-federalists were strictly supportive of states’ rights under a weak central government (like that under the Articles of Confederation). Though both factions had conflicting ideologies, in the end, a compromise created the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut Compromise (also known as The Great Compromise) created a bicameral legislature in which the upper house consists of a senate in which every state gets an equal amount of senators (derived from the New Jersey Plan) and in which the lower house consists of a house of representatives in which the amount of representatives is determined by population size (derived from the Virginia Plan). However, the real compromise is located in probably the most referenced part of the Constitution. Though five of the thirteen states had easily ratified the Constitution, a Massachusetts, influenced by Anti-Federalists, would not ratify the Constitution until the Constitution carried some provisions. These provisions later became the bill of rights. Thus, in the end the Federalists got their central government through the ratification of the Constitution and the Anti-Federalists got a clear protection of their rights through the instatement of the Bill of Rights. Compromise on issues despite two opposing parties or factions is what has shaped the country since the beginning.
Thomas Jefferson: “Half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all”
The Effects of Party Division
It becomes very difficult to find a compromise when there are factions in one group. In American Politics, discussion with two parties can lead to a compromise in the middle. Sometimes the compromise leans left or right due to which party has more seats in congress or in the senate, but for the most part, important decisions end with compromise. However, factions do not only hinder the efficiency of government, but they also cause the opposite party to win. In my opinion, the most significant faction turned third party ticket was the bull-moose party ticket for the election of 1912. The bull-moose party is important because it began long before the actual election of 1912, about thirty years before the election. By the early 1880s, the Republicans were a powerhouse party. There had been a Republican president in all, but one instance since Abraham Lincoln had been assassinated up until Cleveland was elected. However, there was deep division in the Republican Party at the time between those Republicans who wanted to remain within a system of political machines and Republicans who wanted to see civil service reform. The zenith of the dispute could be seen during the Republican National Convention of 1884. When James G. Blaine was elected as the Republican candidate for the party (a man who had been known for his shady dealings), a large group of Republicans, known as “mugwumps,” briefly switched parties to support Grover Cleveland’s ticket for the presidency. Of course, with this added support, Grover Cleveland won the election to become the only president from the Democratic Party within a period of 44 years (1869- 1913, he won twice for a total of 8 years). The most important symbol to come out of this separated Republican Party was Theodore Roosevelt. The most progressive president of his time, Theodore Roosevelt also experienced a time of Republican political dominance in the first decade of the 20th century. Upon returning from a trip to Africa, and finding that his friend William Howard Taft’s policies had changed his ideal country, Theodore Roosevelt began the Bull Moose Party (Progressive Party) to challenge for the presidency of the United States once more. The Bull Moose Party called for a national health service, social insurance, an 8 hour work day and women’s suffrage (amongst many other progressive ideals) to fight what Roosevelt thought as Taft’s conservative policies. Ultimately, Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat, won the election once the Republican faithful split the vote between the Bull Moose Party and the Republican Party. Even though Theodore Roosevelt was once a strong Republican, divisions in the party caused him to help a Democrat candidate win in both the election of 1884 and the election of 1912. Division proves to be ultimately detrimental for any side.
Why the Tea Party Faction’s Destiny is Dictated by History
My opinion of the Tea Party caucus in the Republican Party is less than good. However, I’m going to reference the Bull Moose Effect of 1912. The upcoming election is in 2012 and it is exactly 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt split the Republican vote to help Woodrow Wilson win the election of 1912. In 2010, the Tea Party came into the scene in response to what many people saw as a government that was not solving the problems of the economy for the liking of the American people. Remember, in 2010, the Tea Party during the 2010 congressional elections was an inexperienced caucus. Though libertarian type politics had taken form through candidates like Ron Paul, no one had officially taken office as a member of the Tea Party. After the Republicans won the house in 2010, and taking into consideration the Tea Party’s conservative ideals (which showed some change from the classic Republican Party), I could see that there was a possibility that a repeat may occur in 2012. For example, if Michelle Bachman (Tea Party Caucus founder) wins the Republican nomination, more moderate Republicans might choose to vote for Barack Obama, thus splitting the vote amongst moderate and more conservative republicans. A deep division in the Republican party would not help solidify a win.
Lack of Compromise Creates an Inefficient Government
A faction can ruin the aspirations of a political party, but the lack of compromise can destroy the well-being of a nation. The debt ceiling had never been an issue before until now. I guess that in everyone’s minds regardless of where everyone’s ideologies lay, no one could disagree that protecting the United State’s credit and paying off the nation’s debt was a priority. Yet, the country did not have to deal with the Tea Party before. The Tea Party is threatening not to vote to raise the debt ceiling without major cuts in spending. The Democrats obliged. The Democrats offered 1.5+ trillion dollars in cuts; however, the Republicans would not put tax revenues into discussion. It’s not the Republicans fault because I would like to believe that the Republicans would love to compromise on this issue. The Democrats offered trillions in cuts, which is a big step considering the Democrats strongly support many of the programs they are cutting from. Nonetheless, the Tea Party will not budge to neither raise taxes on the rich nor end subsidies on some of the companies with the biggest revenues (oil companies in particular). The Republicans do not want to compromise because they are trying to keep the Republicans united while the more radical tea party members seem to stick to this misplaced idea that no compromise is the most efficient route. The Republican Party has always been known for being a very united party, but after this dilemma, who knows what future of the Tea Party and the classic Republican Party will become. The country was never meant to completely stick to the arguments of one party. Even from the beginning, two opposing parties would come together to create the most efficient solution for the country through elected officials. Like Thomas Jefferson stated before, “Half a loaf of bread is better than no bread at all.” Since when was a small fraction of a party given the power to hog everyone’s bread? An efficient government stems from efficient discussion ending in some type of compromise. Throughout American Politics, both Democrats and Republicans have been able to somehow (though admittedly difficulty at times) find a way to defeat strongly opposed ideological views. Our American democracy is simply built on an effort to compromise.
- WSQ
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment