March 27th, 2013
I recently watched “The World According to Dick Cheney.” Interesting guy, interesting film. Something that struck me was a statement made by the former Vice President toward the end of the film.
“If you’re a man of principle, compromise is a bit of a dirty word.”
This belief (regardless of who holds it) seems reckless and arrogant to me. For starters, I would suggest that compromise itself can be a principle and a mighty fine one at that. Beyond that, the idea that you cannot be a person of principle and compromise with others seems inherently violent. There are also numerous ways to understand or interpret different principles, but maybe I am missing something…
How do you feel about this statement?
Be good to each other.
I keep Principal internal but act externally with others through Compromise
Good point Joe. Compromise is a solution based way-finding approach and mostly refers to external constituents, as Dave has rightly put(above). Principle is something we keep dear to our hearts and it keeps us ethical. Sometimes we need to compromise in order to understand and accept other point of views. I am with you and feel the statement by Dick Cheney is somewhat counter-intuitive. Without compromise and understanding of it, we will stop evolving.
Like Forrest Gump said – “it’s a little of both.”
Some principles I won’t compromise… murder might fall into that category. (doesn’t mean I won’t kill to protect family and self – but that’s not murder.)
Others, I might, in the pursuit of achieving something greater. (I may not believe in same sex marriage and wouldn’t do it myself but the greater good is served by supporting it.)
Damn that Forrest was a smart guy…
If we work really hard, and we’re a bit lucky (like lottery-winner lucky), some day the litmus test for elected office will be a demonstrated ability to compromise in order to effectively serve diverse constituencies.
Sending others to fight for their country when he wasn’t willing to makes Dick Cheney not a man of principles but of his own convenience.
That said, if people would focus on what they could compromise on vs taking absolute stance based rarely on real principles but more on political party, religious affiliation, etc. we would all find much more common ground.
Personal principles within oneself while public compromise for the greater good seems like the only way to get the majority of things actually done.
Thanks Joe. As ever, you pose a seemingly simple question that has left me in a warren of further inquiry, and few if any answers. A principle is surely something that we have to stay true to, in order to live a life whereby we honor our moral framework. Yet, which of us can with absolute certainty assert that we are right, and others around us, having equally viscerally held principles, are wrong? Is compromise the hard art of balancing our conviction with the possibility of being wrong? Is compromise a necessity in the human experience as a species? As you suggest, is compromise a necessary principle for us all; a universal moral value? I wonder if a utilitarian view helps us, in that we must adopt an attitude whereby the greatest good for the greatest number should be an overriding principle, but somehow balanced with a Rawlsian approach to harmonizing or rendering compatible a freedom or liberty for individually expressed principles… ugh, my head hurts…
As you’ll have seen, I have few answers… darn you, Joe!
[…] some great responses from the last blog post regarding principles and compromise; and on a national level this seems to be something that we are […]