For the health of America, voters should support leaders who are willing to compromise

I am, twice, a beneficiary of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944; the G.I. Bill. The G.I.Bill allowed my father to go to college and buy a home for his family. The G.I. Bill allowed me to finish college and buy a home for my family.

Without compromise and, its twin, reconciliation, there would have been, and would be, no G.I.Bill for millions of GIs, and their families from 1944 through today.

Between January of 1944 and June 22, 1944, the United States Congress argued two versions of the bill with notable differences. Those differences were great enough and numerous enough to confound the approval process and prevent either bill being adopted. (See, Over Here, Edward Humes, 2006).

Among those differences, one version proposed the bill provide financial support for college only to those veterans who had been in college prior to their military service and allow a maximum of $2,000 for a government backed home loan. Another version proposed all veterans who had served in the military during the war be provided financial support for college, or a trade school, and a government backed home loan be provided for the entire cost of the veteran’s home.

The two versions of the bill were reconciled. The more generous proposals for education and home loans were adopted and our nation embarked on the greatest economic boom in its history. This happened only because certain individuals on both sides of the arguments were willing to compromise and reconcile their differences. It was this same desire for reconciliation and willingness to compromise that gave us our very nation.

In a November 9, 1787 letter, regarding the proposed Constitution of the United States, George Washington wrote, “… Hence it is that every state has some objection to the proposed form;and that these objections are directed to different points. That which is most pleasing to one, is obnoxious to another, and vice versa. If then the Union of the whole is a desirable object, the parts which compose it, must yield a little in order to accomplish it; for without the latter, the former is unattainable.”

Today, in 2022, as the current political debate regarding governance of our nation becomes more strident, our elected representatives are less willing to compromise with those of differing opinions, both within and outside of their party. This, in an effort to placate the extremists of their party, who, historically, constitute the majority of voters in a primary election, in order to ensure the elected official an opportunity to return to office.

Therefore, it becomes increasingly important for us (the voters and constituents) to recognize that those who denounce compromise choose to gain nothing rather than reconcile the opposing factions of public opinion. We, the voters, contribute to this stridency when we criticize our elected representatives who attempt to find common ground with those of differing views rather than holding steadfastly to what we believe to be best and only true solution to the problem.

Contradictory, when legislation fails to move forward, those on the left and those on the right point to the lack of compromise by the other side as the cause of that failure. It is then each points to the other and says, “It is they who will not compromise. It is they who are obstructionists. It is they who are un-American.”

Caught in the crossfire of this finger-pointing is the well-being and future of our nation.

It is our responsibility to ensure our representatives understand they are elected by us to solve problems for the better good of the nation, not compound them. Subsequently, it becomes our responsibility to assure those same representatives of our support as they attempt to reconcile differing solutions to a problem and in doing so rise above the parochial and partisan interests peculiar to a particular district, state, or group, as well as their personal interests in advancing their individual political careers.

Jeffrey Luke worked for various Department of Energy contractors as an environmental regulatory and Tri-Party Agreement specialist. He retired in 2015 and lives in Richland.