Home » OPINION » Columns » SPENCER RITCHIE — Compromise is not a four-letter word

SPENCER RITCHIE — Compromise is not a four-letter word

A guest column in this paper recently contended that federal spending and its detrimental effects was the most important issue in Mississippi’s Republican primary election for United States Senate. I absolutely concur on the importance of this issue. As the father of two children under four and another due in August, I am greatly distressed thinking of the deficits and debts with which our children may be left and utterly dismayed by the lack of leadership in Congress to do anything about it.

Yet as vitally important as federal spending surely is, even more important is electing someone who can actually do something about it and the other problems facing our country. It is one thing to diagnose our nation’s problems in a vacuum; it is quite another to make progress towards addressing them in the context of the United States Senate.

It must be remembered that the United States Senate is made up of men and women with vastly different backgrounds and political viewpoints. For every Rand Paul or Ted Cruz there is a Chuck Schumer or Bernie Sanders (a self-described socialist from Vermont). And the Senators on the far-left have just as much power to block legislation as those on the far-right. Moreover, the Senate, currently controlled by the Democratic Party, is only one of three components in the federal policy-making process, along with the House of Representatives and the President. The cold hard fact is that in order to actually accomplish anything of substance, United States Senators, especially Republicans at the present, must sometimes work across the aisle, they must be willing to give and take, they must sometimes — gasp! — compromise.

The most consequential conservative of our time, Ronald Reagan, understood this well. Reagan wrote in his autobiography that “[i]f you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.” Although firmly committed to conservative principles, Reagan was just as committed to addressing the nation’s problems and avoiding gridlock. This is why he forged relationships with key Democrats in Congress, most notably Tip O’Neil in the House and Ted Kennedy in the Senate.

Reagan understood that a successful legislator never makes the perfect the enemy of the good, that policy-making is not a zero-sum game, and that, as Russell Kirk, the intellectual architect of modern American conservatism, often said, “politics is the art of the possible.” And the result of Reagan’s approach was some of the most conservative policy-making in the twentieth century.

On the other hand, and as recent history demonstrates, an unwillingness to work across the aisle when necessary to achieve important policy goals leads to gridlock and government shutdown. Gridlock and government shutdown constitute irresponsible governance, and results in increased rancor, national instability, public disdain for Congress, and disillusionment with government. Sound familiar?

The ultimate flaw with one of the candidates in the Republican primary race, as I see it, is that not only does he eschew compromise, he has made his unwillingness to compromise a central part of his platform. While such an approach may make for rousing speeches to those understandably eager for a “fighter” in Congress, it is not an approach that bodes well for successful problem solving in Congress. Indeed, such an approach will only further paralyze Congress’ ability to address our nation’s problems.

Spencer Ritchie

Spencer Ritchie

What we need more of in Congress are legislators who will rise above the rancor, the name-calling, the “my way or the highway” mentality (as often demonstrated, ironically, by our current President) and focus instead on legislating, on getting the job done. Sadly, for a variety of reasons, these sorts of legislators are becoming harder to find. Fortunately for Mississippi, however, one of the candidates in this race, the incumbent, fits and indeed embodies this description. The other candidate, regrettably, does not.

» Spencer M. Ritchie is an attorney for Watkins and Eager in Jackson, Mississippi.


… we’d like to ask for your support. More people are reading the Mississippi Business Journal than ever before, but advertising revenues for all conventional media are falling fast. Unlike many, we do not use a pay wall, because we want to continue providing Mississippi’s most comprehensive business news each and every day. But that takes time, money and hard work. We do it because it is important to us … and equally important to you, if you value the flow of trustworthy news and information which have always kept America strong and free for more than 200 years.

If those who read our content will help fund it, we can continue to bring you the very best in news and information. Please consider joining us as a valued member, or if you prefer, make a one-time contribution.

Click for more info

About Ross Reily

Ross Reily is editor of the Mississippi Business Journal. He is a husband to an amazing wife, dad to 3 crazy kids and 2 dogs. He is also a fan of the Delta State Fighting Okra and the Boston Red Sox.

One comment

  1. J. Scott Anderson

    I partially agree with you, but only partially because it depends on what the issue is. Allow me to use an outrageous example to illustrate a point. Suppose there is someone that wants to shoot me in the head with a .44 magnum. Obviously, my position is that I do not wish to be shot in the head…rather that I want to keep my head exactly as it is. Yes, there are those that think that a hole in my head would be an improvement in my appearance, but I digress.

    Should I compromise down to only being shot with a .38 Special? It would seem to me that I lose out. The only way I come out ahead in this is to stand on the principle that it is my head to do with as I choose and that no position between our two points would work for me.

    There are many issues with our laws where compromising principles is just a disaster. It may take a bit of time for the consequences to show themselves, but that does not mitigate the disaster…it only moves the day of reckoning.

Leave a Reply