In this series, I have thrown around the word "compromise" quite a bit, and promoted its usage as a first, rather than last, resort.
However, if only as a formality, the question must be asked; what is compromise on a fundamental basis? Taken literally, it is the settlement of a dispute via concessions made by all parties involved. Sometimes, it is confused for surrender or capitulation — most often by radicals seeking to enact their respective agendas through brute force as opposed to the democratic process. A wise uncle of mine once described politics as the very art of compromise — one in which it is necessary to become a master should any degree of success be wanted in life. Of course, he was not just speaking of matters relating to elections and partisan activism, but simply going along to get along, whether this be in a job, relationship, or understanding social hierarchies. The notion that everything truly boils down to the political could not be more correct, with the only item of debate being how many will eventually come around to realizing this.
Now that we know what compromise is, it would be a good decision to ponder exactly why so many are hostile towards it. In every era of American politics, as we covered before, deceitful and disgusting campaign tactics have been prevalent. At no time, however, had the act of compromise itself been demonized to the extent that was during the aftermath of the 2008 presidential election and span of months leading up to the 2010 midterms. Why did millions of voters, pundits, and public officeholders choose to wage total war against what has always been the cornerstone of methodology in our nation's political process? What on earth could have inspired them to do something so nonsensical?