In defending the deal he cut with Republicans on taxes yesterday, President Obama reminded us that, "This country was founded on compromise."
Now I think a strong argument can be made that this contry was also founded on Revolution, but I take his point. And his words reminded me of some of those major compromises critical to the founding and early maintanence of the United States of America. Like:
The Three-Fifths Compromise, wherein the South was granted the ability to artificially inflate its strength in both the national legislature and the presidential selection process by counting its African property as though they were human beings. The North didn't give away the whole store: they forced the South to take a 40% discount on the value of their African human placeholders! That's compromise, baby! Now yes, the result was a remarkable early string of slaveholding Southerners ascending to the presidency -- not to mention the continuation of slavery itself for the better part of the next century -- but in the real world, this is how things get done. There was a constitution to create, and no sensible person should have expected that any leaders of the day would draw a line in the sand against slavery if it looked like the votes wouldn't be there to ratify.
The Missouri Compromise, wherein the leaders of the still-young nation allowed slavery to expand into the Louisiana Territory -- north of the supposed 36th parallel barrier -- by letting Missouri become a slave state. Anti-slavery forces didn't give away the store: they carved a new state out of Massachussettes, called it Maine, and labeled it "free." That's compromise, baby! Of course, this didn't add to the "free" population, but it looked good on paper! In the real world, this is how things get done. There was a nation to hold together, The South needed to be coddled, and no sensible person should have expected that anti-slavery congressmen could have drawn a line in the sand against slavery if it looked like the votes wouldn't be there to pass.
The Compromise of 1850, wherein the South was reassured of the propriety of slavery via a couple of key moves: 1) The Fugutive Slave Act, which required citizens of free territories to capture and return runaway slaves from the South 2) the nixing of the Wilmot Proviso, which would have banned slavery in the Southwest. Now the anti-slavery forces didn't give away the store: they got California as a free state, and they got the sale of slaves banned in the District of Columbia. That's compormise baby! Now yes, not many Africans lived in or even near California at the time, the ownership of slaves wasn't banned in D.C. -- only the sale of slaves was -- and Southern secession talk moved along to its cataclysmic conclusion a decade later anyway, but in the real world, this is how things get done. There was a nation to try hold together, The South needed to be coddled, and no sensible person should have expected that anti-slavery congressmen could have drawn a line in the sand against slavery if it looked like the votes wouldn't be there to pass.
The Compromise of 1877, wherein the South obtained the ability to launch Jim Crow subjugation of now-free -- and often prosperous and powerful -- African-Americans for the better part of a century in exchange for dropping its efforts to steal the 1876 presidential election. Now pro-equality forces didn't give away the store: They got a leader from within the "Party of Lincoln" -- and a pro-black education activist at that -- as president. That's compromise, baby! Of course, Rutherford B. Hayes was not exactly one of America's greatest presidents, and he quit after one term, but in the real world, this is how things get done. There was an election to settle and a post Civil War tantrum to squelch, and no sensible person should have expected that pro-equality electors would have drawn a line in the sand against the disempowerment of blacks if it looked like the electoral votes to make Hayes president might not be there.
So I understand where Obama is coming from.
And the part where he said, "I wouldn't be able to walk through the front door" if it hadn't been for great compromise: I feel him. Now an argument can be made that it was more of a revolution that allowed him, a black man, to "walk through the front door," but I take his point.
And of course, Obama didn't give away the store here. He got a tax cut for non-rich people too, and he got the Estate Tax reinstated. That's compromise, baby! Now, the odds that a political party that has made blindly cutting taxes a cornerstone of its identity would allow taxes to go up on January 1 over a cut for millionaires were likely not very high anyway. And the new Estate Tax would exempt the first $5 million of anyone's estate, severely undercutting its value. But in the real world, this is how things get done. No sensible person should have thought that a president as smart as Obama would draw a line in the sand against needlessly piling on to our already onerous national debt if it looked like the votes to pass a middle-class-only tax cut might not be there.
And of course, what we're talking about here is by no means equivalent to slavery. It's more like indentured servitude in your late 60's. Not the same at all.
So all you Obama critics, step off. This is how things get done.