A person, who later claimed to be a documentary reporter, interviewed members of the U.S. Supreme Court at a social event. She hid her microphone, and they probably thought they were engaging in a purely personal conversation.

The reporter’s ambush was against the ethics that most journalists are expected to observe. A responsible and free press is essential to our democratic form of government. But it hardly works if the media that is supposed to uncover cheating is itself a cheater.

The words of Justice Samuel Alito made their way into the media. However questionable the method of collecting them, they proved informative, if not totally surprising.

Alito is an unrelenting partisan who reveals his orientation in his words as a justice. So, if he took a conservative position reflecting his views and values in this chat, his comments were nothing new. They apparently were meant to be revealed as evidence of his bias, though little more evidence was needed.

But Alito went beyond his political leanings to do a bit of political analysis. In stating his view, he was clear and forthright, characteristics often absent from political speech. Not only might such clarity be helpful, but it may well have been an analysis understood by partisans on both sides.

Talking of the deep divide in the country, he said: “One side or the other is going to win. There can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So, it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

The essence of compromise is each side gives ground. They split the difference, though not always equally. Look at the deals to avoid mentioning slavery in the Declaration of Independence or to create a House of Representatives, elected by the people, and a Senate representing the states. These deals resulted from big compromises.

Traditionally, when the two houses of Congress have disagreed, they created a conference committee to come up with a compromise, which is a deal that leaves both sides equally unhappy. These committees have disappeared.

Beginning with the GOP Contract with America in 1994, compromise began to fade to the point that it hardly survives even on routine matters. Republicans would not compromise, leading the Democrats to play hard ball. Donald Trump exploited the grievances of frustrated Republicans to gain the presidency. In turn, they gained greater power thanks to him.

In the Republican controlled House, the GOP intentionally adopts bills on which compromise is impossible. They use such bills to create election issues. In the Senate, the majority Democrats picked up the practice.

Alito’s friends emphasize that he had offered that people could find ways to work and live together “peacefully.” But he did not explain how.

Occasionally, Republican members of Congress, especially those in vulnerable districts, claim they are willing to compromise. But it turns out that compromise means that agreement depends on Democrats accepting their positions. Even if that were to happen, horse-trading in which they accept some Democratic positions doesn’t happen.

Take former GOP Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He wanted Democrats to join with loyal Republicans to oppose his ouster. They had jointly supported his successful effort to keep the government open, overcoming right-wing GOP opposition. Yet, just before the ouster vote, he bashed the Democrats, assuring they would not join his supporters and retain him.

What if compromise, the historic hallmark of American politics, is virtually dead, as Alito suggested?

The situation might drive American voters to give the Democrats strong congressional majorities and the presidency. As a party much less unified than the GOP, they are familiar with compromise and would know how to restore it. They might produce results.

But that depends on the people. Are we so nearly evenly split that a governing majority is not possible without Trump’s authoritarianism? If so, matters will have to get much worse before a popular majority for compromise emerges.

If not, today’s abortion battles may show the way. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Alito, said abortion would be left to the states, and they jumped to the challenge. Leave more policy to state decisions and limit the Supreme Court’s powers by passing legislation to limit its jurisdiction. Both sides might agree on that.

The result could be more conservative states than liberal states, but with an overwhelming majority of the American people in those liberal states. Maybe some people would move. The National Popular Vote for president would become increasingly likely. In this continental country, a less centralized federation might become appealing.

Alito clearly sees national division. Perhaps he believes that the Court could guard the conservative gates. It shouldn’t, and it can’t.

Gordon L. Weil formerly wrote for the Washington Post and other newspapers, served on the U.S. Senate and EU staffs, headed Maine state agencies and was a Harpswell selectman. 

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

The Maine Idea: Bringing home the bacon, and then some

Next »

Just a Little Old: A wandering minstrel won’t become Taylor Swift