“WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE”

 

The Canadian political scientist Joseph Carens has spent his professional career studying the concept of compromise. His research becomes particularly relevant at a time when political actors of every stripe have relegated the art of compromise to the dustbin and adopted the position that “we cannot afford to lose.” 

According to Mr. Carens, the problem with “compromise” is most evident from the definition offered in Webster’s Dictionary. The word is described as both: (1) “a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions” and (2) “a concession to something derogatory, hazardous, or objectionable.”   For some in today’s divided world , compromise becomes a positive rational method of dispute resolution. For others it is a negative giving up of a core belief for an undesirable result.

What is an elected official or concerned citizen to do who wants to avoid the impregnable box of “we cannot afford to lose?” This commentary will discuss compromise in the context of Ukraine and abortion. For compromise to offer solutions there must be an acknowledgement that a negotiated peace in Ukraine will save lives or that a national abortion law could satisfy most of the country. Ukraine is difficult because the brutalities of war often cloud the path to peace. Abortion is challenging because Americans have divergent moral, religious and philosophical views. However, I will argue that in both cases the art of compromise should be adopted as a viable method for resolving these disputes.

Ukraine. Both the Ukrainian and Russian governments have made it clear that “they cannot afford to lose”. However, there are still pathways to peace short of complete victory on one side or the other. Moreover, a negotiated solution would not only avoid further death, destruction and worldwide economic hardship, it would provide a better prospect of avoiding future conflict.

Similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the compromise would involve Ukraine giving up land in the southeastern war zone in exchange for peace. Ukraine would receive security guarantees from NATO against further aggression and agree not to join the bloc. Russia would sign a non-aggression agreement, pay oil and gas reparations to help rebuild Ukraine and compensate displaced citizens in the land ceded to it. The United States and Europe would agree to a timetable for removing Russian sanctions dependent on progress of the other provisions.

The war in Ukraine is dissimilar from WWII where only an unconditional German and Japanese surrender was possible. Russia remains a major player on the world stage given its oil reserves and nuclear weapons. The longer the conflict continues the greater the risk of a broader conflict.

Lastly, even a chronic stalemate is not in America’s interest because of the billions a prolonged conflict would cost. A stalemate would also not permit Ukraine to return to a peacetime footing.

Abortion.  As aptly noted by the corporate leader Jamie Dimon, “You can compromise without violating your principles, but it is nearly impossible to compromise when you turn principles into ideology.”  This truism explains why abortion does not appear open to compromise. What for many years was a political talking point has become a full-pitched ideological battle following the apparent Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade. Pro-choice and pro-life camps both believe “they cannot afford to lose.”

What is lost in the emotions of the moment is that an opportunity to reach a rational compromise is now worth exploring. The problem with Roe was that a judicial determination did not permit open democratic debate on a difficult subject where the science on the viability of life changed over time. The experience in other countries has suggested that divisive political issues, like abortion, are best solved by elected officials, not judges.

Enacted laws in 98% of all countries in the world now permit limited abortions. Performing abortion based on a woman's request is allowed in 34% of nations, including Canada, most European countries and Japan.  Polls validate that most Americans agree with a national legislative approach that would permit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy with restrictions thereafter. This compromise avoids a patchwork of conflicting state abortion laws, following the repeal of Roe.

Ireland managed to find a compromise on abortion, despite its volatile history and large catholic population. A national law permits abortion during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. It is also permitted in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal fetal abnormality. To achieve this compromise a citizens’ assembly was created which issued recommendations to the government. Around the world, each nation considering abortion has reached a compromise solution based on the good will of its elected officials. In each case they cobbled together a fair resolution, acceptable to a majority of their citizens.

Rarely does “we cannot afford to lose” have a good ending. Finding the middle ground can provide both a lasting peace in Ukraine and heal a nation torn apart by the contentious issue of abortion. This discussion works equally well in resolving conflicts over gun control and voter’s rights. A vocal minority cannot be permitted to hold hostage the will of the majority on all of these issues.

As noted by Professor Carens, “we must stop expecting public officials and diplomats to make compromises on the one hand and, on the other, condemn them for doing that very thing.”