Brian Goldman (University of Pennsylvania) on the Compromise of Yesterday versus the Conviction of Tomorrow

The young generation is especially enamored with this heroic ideal. As is the media, unsurprisingly, given the instant storylines that surround such a mythical figure.

The problem being, of course, that such a “Profile in Courage,” a politician elevated above politics, is not so much a politician as a myth. The last politician to don this mantle now resides in the White House, and is primed for a reelection campaign of caution-- not courage, as was the case in 2008.

All of which makes me wonder whether desiring such politicians is either feasible or warranted. Perhaps we should look, as a Millennial generation gearing to take center stage in a decade or so, towards a politician of conviction over a profile in courage and compromise.

Earlier this month, Ross Douthat, a New York Times columnist, penned a piece questioning the very basis of our current infatuation with compromise. In the column entitled “No Recall,” Douthat noted how 21st century politics has morphed into a zero sum game, with compromise few and far between. Sweeping legislation, the sort of which passed by massive majorities not too long ago, passes by party line votes. We no longer live in an age of surplus, but an age of debt and cutbacks, which contributes to this winner take all game.

The piece got me thinking about the Millennial Values Fellowship that I was privileged to be a part of in April. As with most experiences, the fellowship was wonderful because of the people; I spoke politics with those whom I may never see eye to eye, yet our disagreements on politics and policy could not eclipse the bonds and ties formed.

Yet as I think about "Profiles in Courage," and our increasingly obvious zero-sum politics, and the mounting problems the Millennial generation and America faces on both the balance sheet and abroad, I wonder if these political differences can continue to be bridged by such bonds and ties. It’s a cynical take, sure.

But it’s not an uncommon or unsubstantiated one. When both sides feel—as is the case today—that the issue is great, the solution must be equally great. Instead of patchwork legislation in the thousands of pages, with forged compromises and loopholes abound, I wonder if the politics of yesterday is indeed the politics of the "Profiles in Courage." The politics of tomorrow, and the future, may more necessarily be conviction. A politics let it be noted, not any less courageous.

I think back to a conversation I had with Jelani Harvey over dinner the first night of the fellowship. When talking about meritocracy and affirmative action, I realized that Jelani and I will likely never agree on either the issue or the solution—we just see the problem that much differently.

The solution isn’t to compromise on principles. Especially today, we hear compromise as if it is some grand magic spell that will cast the nation into greatness. That’s never been the case; it is a great fool's errand.

What Jelani and I had, however, was a mutual understanding of why we disagreed on the subject and the reasoning behind our views. That, in turn, is called respect.

The modern day "Profile in Courage" will not be a man or woman who compromises greatly but rather one who respects the other side enough to push through measures that are uncompromising at their core.

Perhaps you say that “scorch the earth” politics burn everything to the ground. But always remember that a phoenix rises from the ashes.