Compromise, Politics, and the Lesser of Two Evils

"Many...people have voted year after year, and after little change seems to occur they wonder if their vote really matters or whether politics is really part of the answer.

I wrote this book  to address that frustration. I also wrote it to address the nagging concern that  citizens and public officials sometimes have: whether it's moral or effective to achieve a partial good in politics and public policy when the ideal is not possible.  

It's often claimed that it's "moral compromise" to aim for anything less than the perfect. I've heard that objection repeatedly during the past twenty-four years that I've been involved in public policy through the courts and legislation. By showing that it is both moral and effective to achieve political and legal reform through the momentum created by incremental changes, I hope to encourage citizens and activists to persevere in politics and public policy. 

Our high expectations sometimes lead us to think that an "all or nothing" approach must govern politics. But in the fact of the institutional constraints, competing interests, and real obstacles that prevent any political reform, I contend that there is no moral compromise when we make the aim of politics not the perfect good, but the greatest good possible.

By showing that it is both moral and effective to achieve political and legal reform through the momentum created by incremental changes, I hope to encourage citizens and activists to persevere in politics and public policy. The frustration that comes from high expectations that aren't realized might be tempered more deeply by looking into the obstacles that block political and legal change.

First, political change usually comes slowly in a democracy. One of the main reason is that political power is diffused through the three branches of government--legislative, judicial, executive. And in the United States, the power is further diffused in our federal system between the national government and the fifty states. This separation of powers was intentional--to prevent the consolidation of power in one person or branch that could result in tyranny. The upside is that tyranny is prevented; the downside is that the three branches of government often move slowly or piecemeal. 

Second, in a representative democracy--a republic--politics inherently involves a clash of contending interests. This is the result of free people in a free society deciding how to live together. Other obstacles include public opinion, legal constraints, procedural hurdles, opposing parties, money, human vices and weakness, among others.

But progress can be made. 

To persevere in pursuing political reform, it's important to understand and contend with these obstacles, as citizens and voters, and find some way to identify effective solutions to the particular obstacles.  

In light of the clash of interests and competing obstacles in politics that block progress and change, it is possible to advance partial changes when complete change is not possible. And such a strategy can be both moral and effective. It is moral when a legislator aims to achieve a partial good or limit an unjust law or condition but is prevented by countervailing forces beyond his or her control. It's always good to decrease and lessen an evil when we cannot completely end it due to forces beyond our control. That's not cooperation or complicity or compromise."

--Clarke Forsythe, Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square (2009 A.D.)