Following Up to Compromising

This is a follow up incorporating some comments I received about my previous blog and some other observations.

• Compromising is always a good strategy when negotiating a contract, enacting laws or even when deciding with your spouse where to go for dinner or on a vacation.
• The blog was precipitated by the 16 senators that voted against the compromise bill to keep the federal government from closing.
• We just went through a terrible time in our history – the federal government shut down because our elected officials could not agree on a deficit extension bill since it included many unrelated extras they could not agree on.
• Congress actually stayed home or sat on their hands for the five weeks of the closure since the only bill that was voted on was the final compromise law that the President signed. Nothing was passed before then. Comment: What are we paying them for if they do nothing? Another comment: They were paid in full during the period the 700,000 federal employees were not paid.
• There comes a period in every business negotiation when either party can walk away. In a negotiation where 700,000 employees will not be paid, or in matters affecting the national good, the parties cannot really walk away – they need to resolve their differences. In this case, it was petty differences since the final deal was probably not too different from something that could have been worked out without the shutdown. I consider this action irresponsible by all parties, i.e. all of the Republicans and Democrats in the two chambers of Congress. Nowhere were the people considered. Shouldn’t the public have been considered? Pure self-centered callousness and just not being nice.
• There are some things where compromising is not appropriate. In matters where the actions are illegal, not honest, immoral, could needlessly harm others, be against strong good intentioned personal convictions where the person is consistent and steadfast in those principles [which very few are], against strong religious principles by sincerely religious people [which few actually are], or where confronted with obviously ridiculous positions.
• I was asked why I did not name the 16 senators. I could have but decided not to in order to keep the blog on a level of Congress doing the right thing rather than looking like a personal attack on some of them. Also, not all of the 16 will be running for president or ran for president and I did not want to add to the verbiage. I did provide links so those that care could easily look it up with two clicks.

In the words of one of my friends, “your premise is that compromise is the preferred option to resolve disputes, but I question if all disputes lend themselves to compromise.” Not all lend themselves to compromise, but in the situation of the recent legislation to keep the government open, this certainly did.