07.01.07
Lessons from Spaeth
Driving home from the library, I fell to thinking about some lessons I learned from my friend Spaeth, may he rest in peace. One is that when someone states that something is a matter of principle, ask what is the principle they have in mind. (Surprisingly often, the principle turns out to be the principle that he should be able to do anything he wants and not have to do anything he doesn’t want.)
Another was a comment he heard (or made) in conversing about politics: that a politician who says, “I may have compromised, but I have never compromised my principles” has really never compromised at all: it’s not a compromise if you cede only things of little moment to you, while holding fast to everything that’s important.
A third was to note with suspicion “principles” that few, if any, would oppose. For example, someone stating loudly, bravely, and resolutely, “I am opposed to war!” Well, who isn’t? The problem is not that people favor war in general as an attractive activity, but that war is sometimes the best available option. The issue is not to take a position on the generality, but to focus on the specifics of the war at hand and the other options available to that war.
Ethan said,
2 July 2007 at 9:48 am
Hmm… so if a compromise has to be giving up something that you hold dear, what word should we use for situations where people work out what we’d normally term a compromise (i.e., come to an agreement in which each party gives up a bit)?
Happy Jack said,
2 July 2007 at 3:06 pm
In a “Calvin & Hobbes” comic strip, Calvin rails against people who have no principles, while declaring that he is always guided by principle, his being, “Look out for number one!”
LeisureGuy said,
2 July 2007 at 5:46 pm
I would call that a negotiated agreement. But a compromise—a serious compromise—in the context of the remark involves each side giving up something it holds dear. Obviously, agreements can be negotiated in which neither side makes a significant sacrifice—those are the best.
Ethan said,
3 July 2007 at 5:00 am
Well, I think that’s less a clarification of the term and more of proposing a more strict definition. It looks to me like an attempt to blend the two meanings of compromise into one:
[from http://www.m-w.com
1 a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2 : a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial: “a compromise of principles”
LeisureGuy said,
3 July 2007 at 7:08 am
I wasn’t actually present in the original conversation, but I imagine the politician in question was defining what s/he meant by “compromise” — “When I use the word, this is what I mean.”
I.e., “If I give up only minor things, I don’t even call that a compromise.” etc.