When did compromise become treason?

People wonder how Donald Trump could possibly become the nominee for president. Well, one hint may be in his recent admission that although his tax plan called for a tax cut for the wealthiest earners in America, the reality of the situation may require they get a tax hike. It wasn’t that his plan had changed like the media and many commentators rushed to suggest. He was simply discussing what was likely to happen when it came to the actual task of getting people to vote for his tax plan.

In short he was admitting that he would likely need to make some compromises to get something passed. Quelle horreur! A politician willing to compromise?! Isn’t that what we always claim we want instead of an ideologue who would rather see nothing happen rather than give an inch on what he claims is best for the country? Granted, there are times when nothing would be the best outcome, but it used to be that politics was about finding a third option we can all accept? When did politics become this all-or-nothing zero-sum game?

Now granted, I’m not a fan of Donald Trump–at least not as a presidential candidate. I did enjoy watching The Apprentice for a while. And there are aspects of having someone who has actually run a business as president that appeals to me. And I hold no illusions that our current political class don’t say things just as nasty or worse than what Trump has said. The difference is they keep it (mostly) behind closed doors so we don’t have to see it. I’m not proud of it, but I’ll admit I say things privately I would never say publicly. I suspect most of us do. But Trump blurts it all out there without apology or, seemingly, forethought. I don’t care much for that approach, and think it rather unbecoming a President of the United States of America.

So with Trump we’re left wondering: is he just being honest and saying what he really thinks, which while crass, could be its own brand of refreshing, or does this mean what he says in private is even worse? Or would we find he’s not even saying what he really believes at all, and only what he calculates as the thing to say to get votes?

This is what I don’t like about politics: can we really be sure of what we’re getting? Politicians are renowned for saying what they think we want to hear, and so we can usually only go by their actions. The trouble there is that we tend to look for ideological purity when we examine actions. Politicians purposely mix together all sorts of strange bills–education spending in a war funding bill, or hiding funding for an unpopular program in a tax cut bill–in an effort to lay traps for one another (and to sneak things past voters). They love it when they can pull that out at a later date and say, “See, you voted FOR {insert nasty undesirable here}! You’re a traitor to your party!” when in reality their vote was the result of a compromise that got them something they wanted as a concession.

Holding our politicians accountable for what they really do in comparison to what they really think is hard work. There isn’t a candidate out there who hasn’t done something unpopular in order to get something they thought was more important. And there isn’t a group out there who won’t purposely overlook that in an effort to beat up that candidate. Sorting it all out is difficult and far too often requires swimming through the septic tank of politics.

Recently I got an email from my precinct’s party chair and a fellow county delegate expressing his opposition to a particular candidate for governor. I will admit I didn’t read much of the email. For one, it was long. Also what little I read sounded more passionate than I’m generally comfortable with. I like this guy as a person and have had very positive interactions with him in other capacities.

But in politics he comes across as someone with an ax to grind. He openly admitted he only came to the last caucus to try and get elected as a delegate so he could vote against an incumbent state representative he felt had blown him off. He got elected as a delegate, and also as the precinct chair, only to find the candidate he opposed was running unopposed. I didn’t see him at the county convention, nor did I hear of any efforts by him to send a replacement, which was his duty as chair. I’m just petty enough to hold a bit of a grudge when I sacrifice my time for something that other people just blow off. As a result I’m disinclined to listen to this person’s political opinions.

The point here, however, is to point out how complex politics can be, and how things are seldom as cut and dried as they are made to appear. It may be that this person has completely valid points to make against that candidate. But often we have to evaluate the candidate’s critics as much as we do the candidate. My experience with the same representative he didn’t like was quite opposite of his. I found this representative to be sincere, approachable, and someone who takes his position seriously and looks for input from constituents. This also didn’t help my opinion of the precinct chair’s political opinions. I find myself, for several reasons, disinclined to want to read this person’s email. In my other areas of contact with this person he has my unquestioned support. He is excellent at other things he does.

I’ll admit I’m pretty disheartened by the current Presidential field (and dismayed by the current President’s unwillingness to remain above and outside the current cycle). There is no candidate I can feel good about.  There are a lot of reasons to vote against Trump–or Hillary–or Bernie. However, I’m not sure a recognition that compromises will need to be made in order to get things done is one of them.