The case for political compromise in an age of division

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As a lifelong moderate conservative, I often find myself stranded in the political no-man’s-land of today’s hyperpartisan climate. Our nation is divided, with every issue becoming a battleground for competing extremes. While most agree this toxicity is fracturing society, solutions remain elusive. I propose we start with a simple yet radical idea: compromise.

To move forward, we must recognize that we have all the necessary voices in the room. We just need to engage with one another. Often, opposing camps share similar goals but diverge on how to achieve them. By focusing on these shared outcomes, and having empathy for one another, we can find common ground.

Here I will fly through nine complex and controversial issues. I have no illusion that the task will be easy or that my specific suggestion ought to be the final destination. I do hope to plant seeds for engagement that might lead our policymakers and our people “back to the table.”

Immigration reform must begin with empathy. Many fleeing their homelands face unimaginable hardship. While maintaining the rule of law, we could work to address the root causes of migration — poverty, violence and corruption — while crafting fair and enforceable policies.

The failures of our education system, particularly in underserved urban areas, are undeniable. Instead of throwing money at the problem or fighting over vouchers, why not just emphasize accountability? Transparent performance metrics for teachers and schools could reward excellence and address underperformance, benefiting students above all.

There seems to be a tribalized battle over what is taught so why not just let parents make the decision for their children?

The debate over guns often devolves into shouting matches, yet a potential compromise exists. We can protect recreational firearms while restricting military-grade weapons. Universal gun registration should be a nonnegotiable baseline — both a constitutional safeguard and a public safety measure.

The debate over gender issues highlights our divided values. Here’s a proposal: Tolerate others’ identities and orientations without demanding universal celebration. This balance respects individual freedoms without mandating ideological conformity.

Discussions of race often degenerate into personal accusations of “racist,” or focused oversimplifications that obscure the nuances of systemic issues. We must find a way to both recognize historical harms and envision a path forward to a shared future.

Instead of adopting polarizing slogans, we could unite behind the principle that all lives matter equally and listen to diverse perspectives. Only then can we design solutions that work for everyone.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a powder-keg, and partisanship often blinds us to shared values. While Israel must defend itself, we must also advocate against the collateral suffering of innocent civilians. Uniting against Hamas, a universally recognized evil, could pave the way for a more nuanced discussion of peace and security might be a good start.

Abortion remains among the most divisive issues. Following Roe v. Wade’s repeal, states have implemented extreme laws on both sides. Why not settle on reasonable limits, such as a defined time frame for elective procedures with exceptions for rape and incest — an approach that once reflected national consensus?

Our health care system is broken, with costs spiraling out of control. A universal basic care model, offering essential services while allowing supplemental private insurance, could mirror successful systems in other nations. This approach defines just how much health care expense every American is entitled to (as is done in most countries in the West), but allows everyone access to care without dismantling innovation.

Our society has drifted from virtues like modesty, humility and service. Instead, we’ve become a nation of victims, fixated on entitlements. Fiscal irresponsibility has deepened this crisis, with our national debt threatening future generations. As John F. Kennedy so powerfully urged, we must shift our focus from what the country can do for us to what we can do for the country.

In my decades of political engagement, I’ve seen statesmanship replaced by self-serving partisanship. Leaders now prioritize power over progress, enforcing rigid ideological purity. What lesson does this teach future generations? Tribalism is a destructive force.

Let’s look for the values that can unite us. These values are not a sign of weakness, but the foundation of a functioning democracy – and are most likely to a robust shared future. It’s time to step back from the brink. Let’s stop screaming past one another and embrace the timeless principles of tolerance, cooperation and compromise.

I’m not necessarily advocating for blanket centrism, but rather believe that only by bringing the best ideas from each side into constructive collaboration can we heal our fractured nation. I know that compromise is not easy and takes commitment, courage and requires seeking to understand before being understood. It also requires trusted relationships.

A few years ago, I was in a prayer meeting with eight U.S. Senators in the Capitol. Half were Republicans and half Democrats. I floated the idea of passing a law that would mandate that each member would have to vote against their party lines at least 10% of the time.

They loved it, as it would provide political cover for voting their conscience when in disagreement with the party line. It would also be a big incentive for the compromise needed in politics.

That might be a great start.

Ward Brehm lives in Minneapolis.