BLACKSBURG
110 Professional Park Drive
540-552-4573
BOTETOURT
33 British Woods Drive
540-992-6768
OTHER LOCATIONS
SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE
13295 Booker T. Washington Hwy
540-721-4433
ROANOKE
1960 Electric Road
540-772-7171
SERVING THE SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE
COMMUNITY FOR OVER 18 YEARS!
Ophthalmologist and Optometrist
Specializing In:
Comprehensive eye exams
Outpatient Cataract surgery/with premium lens
Macular Degeneration/Diagnosis and Treatment
Diabetic and glaucoma eye care
Pediatric exams and treatment
Refractive surgeries including LASIK and PRK
Contact lens fittings
Full service optical shop
“Providing Comprehensive Eye Care With Compassion and Excellence”
I’m getting tired of hearing the
word “compromise” as it is being used
in today’s political discourse. The
word is being misused in a context
that implies the non-existence of
principle.
It sounds good, gentlemanly even,
to be willing to give a little in order to
gain a little, and achieve peace and
harmony. Indeed it is, when you’re
picking out carpet and drapes…
not so much when principles are at
stake. If I want one shade of blue for
our window treatments, and my wife
prefers a shade that is somewhat
darker, it is easy for us to meet in
the middle and ultimately reach an
acceptable compromise.
However, if I want a puppy, and
she flatly refuses to accept one
into our home, I see little room for
compromise. If we get the critter,
I’m happy and she’s angry. If not,
she’s happy and I’m disappointed.
Nobody would suggest that we get
half a dog, but that’s the stuff of
compromise. What’s worse, she
would still resent the half dog, which
would likely embody at least half of
the characteristics that fueled her
original disdain for the animal. My
attempts to play with the half-critter
would likely be a let-down, and let’s
face it: that dog won’t hunt.
On the other hand, if we both
wanted a dog, but I wanted a large
dog, and she preferred a lapdog,
there would be an opportunity for
compromise. We both want a dog; the
compromise is in its size. Ultimately
we both get something that we want:
a dog.
Compromise requires some initial
common ground. A true compromise
lies in the details. If I have $100, and
you want it, calling for a “compromise”
is disingenuous, because it involves
me losing something and you gaining
it. If we meet in the middle, I have lost
$50 and gained nothing. You have
gained $50 and lost nothing. That’s
not a compromise; it’s robbery.
I’m reminded of a friend who
once asked me, “You know the 10
Commandments, don’t you?” Of
course I replied in the affirmative. He
then proceeded to ask me with which
ones did I disagree. His premise
was that we needed to modify them
in order to suit a more modern
lifestyle. I answered that I had no
right to disagree with them. They are
principles. One does not compromise
on principle. We may err, and sin, but
that should not cause us to abandon
our principles. It’s one thing to
stumble and fall; it’s quite another to
decide that you like it better down on
the ground.
True compromise starts with that
shared interest, and is manifested
in a tug of war over the details. Now
suppose that I have a job that I want
you to do. You want $100 for the job,
and I offer to pay $80. If I am willing
to go a little higher, and you agree to
go lower, we can meet in the middle
at $90, and we have a compromise.
The preceding example starts with
a shared goal: I want a job done, for
which I am willing to pay, and you
want to earn money, for which you
are willing to work. The compromise
is over the AMOUNT that you get paid
for the work, and possibly over the
working conditions. We both start out
with essentially the same goal, and
haggle over the details.
In the political arena, our distortion
of the concept of “compromise” leads
to something akin to a football game.
Football is a series of “compromises”
wherein the offense tries to take
yardage away from the defense. The
defense works to limit the loss of
yardage, and rarely gains anything.
Meanwhile, the offense typically
moves closer and closer to its goal.
This does not help the defense,
and hence, does not qualify as
compromise.
So when both sides agree that a
tax increase is in order, they may very
well compromise on the extent of that
increase. If both parties believe that
the Navy needs new aircraft carriers,
they might compromise on the
number of carriers that are added or
the details of their construction.
But if one party wants to start
a war, and the other party doesn’t,
you can’t start half a war. Either
you’re at war, or you’re not. If you
think it’s wrong to deny people their
basic human rights, is it OK to deny
them SOME of their basic human
rights? Or only deny them all to SOME
people? After all, we must endeavor
to “compromise”, no?
Why, then, is this word being
bandied about so much? It’s
because we are losing the language.
Euphemism has long been the
overused tool of politicians of all
stripes. “Police Action” sounds so
much better than “war”. “Protest” is
much easier on the ears than “riot”
or “terrorist attack”. We cringe at the
sound of runaway spending, but see
the wisdom of “investments”. We
bristle at the word “tyranny”, but we
gleefully accept “regulators”, “czars”,
and “mandates”.
We reject big government, and
then applaud the only somewhat
bigger government which results from
“compromise”. We refuse to swallow
the mud sandwich, but in the name
of statesmanship, we eat it a bite at
a time.
To
make
matters
worse,
lawmakers often don’t even allow
their ‘debates’ to see the light of
day. Instead, they make backroom
deals, and give the resultant mess
an innocuous sounding name in the
hope that nobody, including those
who vote to pass it, will bother to read
what’s actually in it. They used to call
them “smoke filled rooms”… now they
are “private negotiations” which end
in “compromise”.
Small wonder, then, that some
whisper quietly of revolution,
which
makes
most
people
uncomfortable… perhaps we should
call it “governmental recycling” or a
“political makeover” instead.
Editor’s Note
Discover Smith Mountain Lake
Summer 2013
7
6
