Compromise, not Bipartisanship

I have been paying attention to politics long enough now that I feel that I am beginning to see how it truly works. Even if you aren't involved with government, there are politics everywhere. If you have maneuvered for a promotion at work, you have used politics. If you have been in a relationship long enough, to the point where you don't agree on everything like you used to, you have gotten a taste of politics. It even starts as early as elementary school. Did you ever convince the other kids on the playground to play tag like you wanted instead of red rover like little Susie wanted to? If you did, that was your first taste of politics. If you pay attention, you can even catch some grade school behavior in the stilted halls of government: "I don't like your idea. I'm taking my ball and going home!"

People who have more expensive educations than I do might say that politics is the science or art of government. I cannot disagree with that. There is a great deal of liberal arts and sciences that can help anyone do well in government. Those subjects include law, psychology, sociology, economics, history, and of course, political science. I, on the other hand, like to simplify things. For me politics is nothing more than a game with no written rules. You have to figure out those rules and develop your own play book. I'm certain that there are unimaginable volumes of ink devoted to politics over the history of the written word; however, like wisdom, politics is something that is best learned through life rather than just in books. Another quality that politics shares with wisdom is that the more you learn, the more you realize that there is so much more to learn.

The spark that lit the fire for this latest commentary is due to the June 10th meeting of the Manchester BOD. I am beginning to understand what being called partisan or being asked to be bipartisan means in our current two party system. If you want someone to agree with you from the other side of the isle, you ask them to be bipartisan. If that person disagrees with you, then they are being partisan. To go one more step, if someone strongly disagrees with you, then they are being divisive. This is one of the failures of a two party system. What ever happened to finding compromise?

I'm not entirely sure when during our history that it started, quite possibly with the start of the Cold War, but compromise is being painted in a negative light at all levels of our government. Compromise is associated with surrender, capitulation, or even being unprincipled. There was a time in government when compromise was an honorable way to find agreement, tolerance and balance. Looking back in history, some of those compromises, whether they were a failure or a success, where given names. In the lead up to the Civil War there was the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. During the Philadelphia constitutional convention there was the Massachusetts Compromise, the Three-Fifths Compromise, and the Connecticut Compromise which was later to be known as The Great Compromise.

Am I expecting the next "great compromise" to come out of the Lincoln Center hearing room, no; however, I was encouraged to see what appeared to be an impromptu compromise during the debate on the water & sewer rate increase. In a philosophical difference between the Democrats, who wanted a five percent increase to the rates, and the Republicans, who wanted a three and a half percent increase, Director Tweedie offered an amendment to split the difference at a four and one quarter percent rate increase. I commend him on breaking rank and offering up his compromise even after the impertinent comment made by Michael Pohl, Manchester Democratic Town Chairperson, calling him a "baby duck following Director Pelletier."

Finding compromise is not being unprincipled or a personal weakness. If anything, it takes a great deal of skill, tact, and courage to find the middle ground. Since the November election, a common theme during the BOD meeting public comments has been a want by the citizens of Manchester for the two parties to work together to do what's best for the town. I am encouraged by one of Mayor Spadaccini's comments during his closing statement during the particularly rancorous portion of the June 10th meeting that voted in Director Farina. If Mayor Spadaccini feels that his greatest failure so far is getting the two caucuses of the BOD to work together, then I hope that he does more to find the compromises rather than presiding over one party line vote after another. By being the Mayor of Manchester and Chairperson of the BOD, he represents more than just the majority party on the BOD, but the whole town's diverse political make-up. By finding true compromises, rather than seeking "bipartisanship," the Board of Directors can truly serve the Town of Manchester and its citizens.