Few concepts are more sacred to the tea party movement than the belief that compromise is a sign of weakness.
Its message to Republican members in the U.S. House of Representatives is "compromise and you will face a primary battle in your district." On the flip side, few concepts are more sacred to President Obama than the belief that compromise is the best way for government to function.
Obama's falling approval rating is evidence that while no Republican has had the temerity to make concessions on major appointments or legislation no matter how little actually gets done, some Democrats also are willing to reject compromise in favor of winner-take-all politics.
In 1964, the far-right wing of the Republication Party ushered in its first run at non-compromising purity and nominated Sen. Barry Goldwater for president. His candidacy resulted in the election of Democrat Lyndon Johnson, passage of the Voting Rights Act and the creation of Medicare.
In 1968, the refusal of those on the left to accept the political realities of a Hubert Humphrey nomination for president brought victory for Republican Richard Nixon, a conservative Supreme Court and Watergate.
There must have been some comfort for the losers in those elections in the fact that they did not compromise, but none of the outcomes fit purist agendas. None changed the reality that governing in a democracy demands finding common ground.
As voters, we need to decide what to do when we are frustrated. Are we going to raise our fists and walk away? Or engage in the difficult process of deciding which compromises to accept?
