Celebrating Compromise
Crapgame: Then make a DEAL!
Big Joe: What kind of deal?
Crapgame: A DEAL, deal! Maybe the guy’s a Republican. “Business is business,” right? [Famous scene from 1970 movie Kelly’s Heroes]
Invictus is a decent movie – at 80 years old Clint Eastwood is still in top form. More interesting is that Invictus, like Kelly’s Heroes, is a rare movie celebrating compromise, the key virtue of “dealism,” or economic efficiency.
The movie shows Nelson Mandela, new black leader of previously white-run South Africa, trying to unite suspicious whites with blacks eager for revenge. Of course Mandela achieves this not by touting the advantages of peace and prosperity, but via pride in beating a common enemy: the South African rugby team wins the world cup. The title of the movie comes from a poem that inspired Mandella in prison, a poem all about defiance, self-respect, and not a whiff of compromise.
All of which shows just how hard it is to inspire passion for compromise; sadly, no one goes to the barricades for efficiency. The best this movie can offer is that peace and compromise can help you crush your enemies into smoldering ruins. Whee.
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Forward! ” —Walt Kelly, June 1953
Based on the title, I expected this post to be about our irrational desire to compromise... I was quite surprised when it seems to imply we don't compromise often enough!
For example (and with a strong hope that the conversation doesn't get sidetracked on the specifics of one arbitrary example): if I think the minimum wage ought to be at least $X, and you think it should be no more than $Y (assuming Y<X), we&#039ve got a problem. We could "compromise" by setting it as (X+Y)/2 or some other intermediate point, but all we&#039ve done is ensure that no one is satisfied with the result! If I truly think it should be at least $X, how can I agree to something which sets it below $X?
The only reason I can think of is that I have no intention of leaving it at (X+Y)/2, but rather waiting a little while so everyone will become accustomed to that as a new "floor" (replacing your $Y maximum tolerable rate), so that next year we can again "split the difference" and eventually I&#039ll get what I want. But even then I&#039m a fool if I think you&#039re not playing the same game - and, rationally speaking, I&#039m as likely to lose as I am to win at this, so all it does is drag out the disagreement, it doesn&#039t really solve anything!