Common Ground, Not Compromise

Here is a portion of a 60 Minutes interview with incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner, who explains why he thinks “compromise” is a dirty word:

J. BOEHNER: We have to govern. That’s what we were elected to do.

STAHL (on camera): But governing means compromising.

J. BOEHNER: It means working together. It means find…

STAHL: It also means compromising.

J. BOEHNER: It means finding common ground.

STAHL: OK, is that compromising?

J. BOEHNER: I made clear I am not going to compromise on — on my principles, nor am I going to compromise…

STAHL: What are you saying?

J. BOEHNER: … the will of the American people.

STAHL: And you’re saying I want common ground, but I’m not going to compromise. I don’t understand that. I really don’t.

J. BOEHNER: When you say the — when you say the word “compromise”…

STAHL: Yeah?

J. BOEHNER: … a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh-oh, they’re going to sell me out.” And so finding common ground I think makes more sense.

STAHL (voice-over): I reminded him that his goal had been to get all the Bush tax cuts made permanent.

(on camera): So you did compromise?

J. BOEHNER: I’ve — we found common ground.

STAHL: Why won’t you say — you’re afraid of the word.

J. BOEHNER: I reject the word.

Lesley Stahl may not understand the distinction Boehner is trying to make, but I think a lot of mediators would.  As I discussed in a prior post, a lot of participants in negotiations instinctively recoil from the very idea of compromise.  To compromise means to sacrifice one’s principles.  It means taking less than one is entitled to.  It means giving up on the very idea of finding justice.  To find consensus or common ground, on the other hand, means identifying the degree to which both side’s interests can be satisfied.  It means finding areas where you and the other side might agree.  It means finding a solution that achieves a better result for both sides than the alternative of continued conflict.

One of the reasons that the tax cut deal hammered out by the White House and Congressional Republicans was viciously attacked from both the right and the left was that it was seen as a compromise of fundamental principles.  Those who favored the agreement, on the other hand, saw it instead as a means of satisfying each side’s interests, at the expense of  having to agree to satisfy the other side’s interests.

I don’t know what kind of a Speaker John Boehner is going to turn out to be, but I think he is making a useful distinction that could enable him to serve the interests of his most principled constituents, while at the same time allowing him to make agreements with the opposition that have the potential of getting things done.

                        author

Joe Markowitz

Joseph C. Markowitz has over 30 years of experience as a business trial lawyer.  He has represented clients ranging from individuals and small businesses to Fortune 500 corporations.  He started practicing with a boutique litigation firm in New York City, then was a partner in a large international firm both… MORE >

Featured Mediators

ad
View all

Read these next

Category

Co-Mediation in A Volunteer Co-Mediation Process. Some Simple Ideas

A Little Context: In my work as a volunteer mediator in in both court referred cases and divorce and family cases, have been “paired” with a co-mediator.  Apart from the...

By Deborah Heller
Category

Gini Nelson on Mediator Ethics: First, Do No Harm; Then, Do Good?

Gini Nelson is the founder and author of the Engaging Conflicts Blog.  Gini  received her law degree from George Washington University Law School in 1983 after teaching Social Problems at the...

By Victoria Pynchon
Category

In an election year, falsehoods not so easily banished by facts

So much of negotiation and mediation is about changing minds. As negotiators gather and exchange information, new data shifts the way people understand the underlying issues, perceive the risks, and...

By Diane J. Levin

Find a Mediator

X
X
X