R: Conserve Compromise

A compromise is generally understood as an agreement between two opposing sides under which each side gains something it wants while conceding something to the other side. For conservatives, people who generally support order, tradition, and morality, deciding when to compromise on these values and when to stand one’s ground has been a fraught topic throughout history. The early Roman Republic was torn apart by the notorious “Conflict of the Orders,” the long-standing conflict between lower-class plebeians and upper-class patricians. This conflict was only resolved in 494 BC, when the plebeians essentially went on strike and forced the patricians to hammer out a compromise that granted the plebeians a greater say in government in exchange for the allowance of continued patrician social dominance. Neither side was happy with the agreement, but the arrangement endured for half a millennium. 

Indeed, compromises can be far more enduring than outright victories. The affirmative may point toward the principles of the “golden mean” in political theory and the via media in Christian theology. Great political triumphs like the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the Treaty of Windsor (in effect since 1386), and the Camp David Accords in 1978 all find their roots in compromise. Many religious movements, too, find their roots in compromise – the Anglican church’s theology was famously described by Thomas Cranmer as a via media between Lutheranism and Calvinism (although subsequent commentators have misattributed this principle to a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism). Pragmatism demands that we form compromises rather than shooting for unrealistic goals. Much of the reason for the injustice and ineptitude of recent US Congresses and Presidential administrations is the refusal of opposing sides to negotiate in good faith and form compromises. Furthermore, in the beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12), Christ calls his followers to be peacemakers, while he admonishes Peter for drawing his sword (John 18:11). While of course we cannot compromise on our own sin and injustice in the world, surely there are areas where compromise must be conserved – areas of politics and interpersonal relations? 

But history is rife with unequal and wicked compromises. The negative may point toward the endless waffling of the founders and their heirs over the issue of slavery as an example of a compromise that allows gross injustice to flourish. Compromise, more often than not, is just another word for appeasement, like Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 Munich Agreement, which turned a blind eye to Nazi Germany’s aggressions in the Sudetenland. In a meaningful way, there are only the winners and the losers. There is a famous story in Roman history of the first barbarian sack of Rome in 390 BC, when the

Romans struck a deal with the barbarian chief Brennus to withdraw his forces from the city rather than occupy it. When the Romans complained that the weights on the scales were heavier than agreed upon, Brennus threw his sword on the scales and said, “vae victis,” meaning “woe to the conquered.” Surely there can be no negotiation, no appeasement, no fence-riding when dealing with growing evils like abortion, euthanasia, substance abuse, gun violence, or atrocities abroad. Either good will prevail or evil will reign. Christ did not come to earth to deal in half measures and hand-wringing; he came to kill death and conquer sin, and at the end of time he will not rehabilitate the Devil or forge some compromise between evil and good, but he will slay Satan and unmake every evil thing he has wrought. 

Should we bargain with our opponents or run roughshod over them? With respect to issues like abortion, will we embrace gradual negotiation or demand immediate change? Is compromise conservative or cowardly? Will you even take a side at all, or will you choose to vote in the traditional?