Alexandra Petri is the resident humorist at The Washington Post. She has the knack of taking wacky ideas in the world of politics and exposing them as bizarre. In this post, she shows the absurdity of sanewashing extremism in the guise of finding a “middle ground” with crackpot ideas. The “middle ground,” she cautions, may actually mean “giving ground” to very bad and deadly ideas. Sometimes there is no middle ground between a good idea and a dangerous idea.
She writes:
“As a Democratic member of Congress, I know my party will be tempted to hold fast against Mr. Trump at every turn: uniting against his bills, blocking his nominees and grinding the machinery of the House and the Senate to a halt. That would be a mistake. Only by working together to find compromise on parts of the president-elect’s agenda can we make progress for Americans who are clearly demanding change in the economy, immigration, crime and other top issues.”
— “Let’s Try Something Different in How We Deal With Trump,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-New York), in a New York Times op-ed
Look, some people are still naive enough to believe that polio is, for lack of a better word, “bad.” And recent signs haven’t been encouraging! It seems like the disease wants to do exactly what it did last time: cripple children and put them in iron lungs. But what if instead of fighting it, we … didn’t?
When I look at how people voted this election, I am forced to conclude: Some of you want polio. Who am I to stand against that desire? Someone with values?
Do I think polio is good? No! Of course not. But some people do, and I just think it would be a mistake not to give them the opportunity to set the course of vaccine policy for the next four years. Which, again, isn’t what I want. But compromise is important. That was why people voted for me, someone who said he didn’t like polio, so that I could surprise them by wanting to hear polio out. That’s just good politics.
It’s not only polio. Everywhere you look, there are battles that once felt existentially important in which you can just surrender, as I’m sure Donald Trump is eager to tell Ukraine. And I am ready to start doing that work — first on polio, then on everything else.
Listen, I’m not naive. I know that every indication so far has been that only one side is willing to compromise on anything. That gives us bargaining power! Or is it the other side that gets the bargaining power … ? Hang on, let me go look this up. This feels important to get right! Well, let me keep going with my argument, but I will come back and look this up. Don’t let me forget!
Where was I? Right: Having core values means that sometimes you have to stand up for them, even when it feels like an uphill battle. For instance, the belief that trans people deserve protection from those who would legislate them out of public spaces and eliminate their right to medical self-determination — a bottom line that I would never budge on, except to completely throw away that principle if I ever decide it’s politically expedient. Which I think I might just have done! Whoops!
But, hey, that’s what principles are: inconvenient. Except for my bedrock principle: that those who want the opposite of what I stand for and who refuse to work with me on any issue probably know something that I don’t, and I should listen to them. That I will never abandon.
When I see someone who wants to put polio back on the map, I just see one more opportunity for compromise. Why, if enough of us say, “You know what, in all that ranting about fluoride, I heard one word that made a kind of sense! Say more! I bet we can find common ground!” maybe the other side will stop believing what they believe and change their entire worldview! Isn’t that what happened to Scrooge? It’s not? Well, never mind.
If I just listen hard enough and agree to find common ground, I am certain the other party will be the one to change. That’s usually what makes people change: when you give up defending your position completely! Then they budge. I hope! That’s certainly what I’m counting on for the next four-plus years!
When I read the sentence “Unless enough people find the spine to oppose his appointment, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will soon be in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services,” what I see is not a call to find some spine (impossible) and remind others of the stakes of not doing so. When has anyone found a congressional spine, except RFK Jr. while out on one of his weekly Hikes in Search of Surprising Things to Put Into His Freezer?
No, what that sentence means is: We need to start thinking of ways to compromise now! Compromise public health, compromise public safety, compromise all of our principles! Because that’s what the country needs: more things to be compromised.
And I, for one, am excited.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks for the sardonic smile from this satiric essay. It describes the weak and waffling Democratic party very well. Compromise is often necessary in politics. When only one side breaks ranks and compromises resulting in the passage of harmful legislation, it is called defeat. Democrats have compromised so much in the past forty years so many people no longer have much faith in them which is perhaps why they lost The White House, Senate and House. Instead of seeing their loss as a reason for change, they are digging in their heels with the same stale ideas that helped them lose. When only side does all the compromising, it becomes a compromise with the devil and loss upon loss for working families.
LikeLike
I read the other day that Jimmy Carter advocated national health insurance during a debate with Reagan, and Reagan laughed at him.
LikeLike
1980 was my first election – and the first one where I really paid any attention to policies – and I supported Ted Kennedy over Carter in the primary because when Carter was elected in 1976 he had a huge Democratic majority in the House and Senate – Carter came into office with 61 (!!!) Democratic Senate seats and a 292-143 majority in the House – but Carter OPPOSED simply giving Americans national health insurance. And that was when the public strongly supported national health insurance.
This is a very good article about it. I respect Jimmy Carter for many things, but it is ironic that he was far more of a neo-liberal anti-progressive than Bill Clinton was. No wonder Reagan laughed at Carter when he professed to want national health insurance (but not right away – first Carter wanted his favorite neo-liberal health policies that would have been disastrous to be enacted).
As the article here says: “Carter is an intelligent, compassionate man. But, beneath that toothy grin, he’s a mean old man with a long memory.” Carter played the victim and blamed everyone but himself – I would have liked it if he had shown some insight into how his intentional betrayal of progressive principles was wrong. “Carter’s claim that he was victimized overlooks the fact that he made liberals many promises (industrial policy, passage of the ERA, labor law reform) that he betrayed.”
https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/memo-to-jimmy-carter-ted-kennedy-didnt-sabotage-he
Jimmy Carter was a far better human being than Ted Kennedy was. Just like Liz Cheney has more integrity and political courage than Tom Suozzi.
But both Carter and Cheney supported neoliberal economic policies that harmed Americans instead of policies that would have helped Americans. And Carter betrayed those who elected him in 1976 when he had the chance to do good.
LikeLike
Excellent article, NYCPSP. Thanks for sending it.
LikeLike
NYCpsp stated “1980 was my first election”
Ya young pup! 😉
LikeLike
My first election was 1960
LikeLiked by 1 person
all the posts today have to do with a Republican Party that has not truly compromised since Reagan. They complain constantly about the left wing press, but it is a myth created by Robert Ailes and then by Rupert Murdoch’s billions. Again and again, factual information presented to a public that is militantly stupid falls into a hole while misinformation is amplified by those who benefit from spreading it.
Under these conditions, compromise is capitulation.
LikeLike
Roy: I think you are exactly right–like with Putin: “compromise is capitulation” but also civility is an invitation.
It reminds me of pushy salespeople (or even religious zealots who are trying to convert you) who will SAY ANYTHING just to keep the conversation going (so they can exhaust you into making a purchase or calling out to God), or to get a compromise which they see as an invitation to keep trying to get you to buy X, or like an alcoholic or druggie relative . . . to take more and more of whatever they want. You have to be rude on the phone to get them to go away. Try to be civil, and they’ve got you. Your authenticity is their ticket to success.
In a way, just discussing anything with them is a capitulation of sorts–to their careless and uncivilized way of doing things. They have their ends, but don’t give a hoot about their means.
They’ve made it so that you cannot compromise without giving up everything–they get their camel’s nose just a little more under the edge of the tent–and pretty soon, they’re in, papering the walls, fouling the air, and poisoning the water, and pushing you out into the garage of your own house. CBK
LikeLike
She is funny every time.
LikeLike
”Sometimes there is no middle ground between a good idea and a dangerous idea.” WRITE THIS IN STONE AND PLACE IT EVERYWHERE!!! Thank you, Diane for stating this so perfectly. It reminds me of people trying to negotiate with terrorists—there is no “middle ground” for compromise! Sad, but true.
LikeLike