Founding Fathers compromised

I dare you to go to work today and tell your boss you refuse to compromise on anything. Or tell your co-workers that it is your way or the highway. Try it with your spouse and see where you sleep tonight.

I cannot imagine any person in America who could get away with that type of behavior. So why should we tolerate it from our elected officials?

Recently, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the third-ranking House Republican, boasted that there will be “no compromise” if Republicans win either or both houses on Tuesday. “No compromise” on taxes, health care, government spending — “And if I haven’t been clear enough yet, let me say again: No compromise.”

Yet, just last year in celebration of Constitution Day, Pence wrote, “We resolve to remain faithful to the ideals of our Founders.”

Perhaps, then, it is time for a short lesson about our founders: They compromised.

Yes, the Constitution is a document full of compromise. Our great nation was established through compromise. Let us review.

Big states wanted representation based on population. Small states upheld a legislature based on equal votes for each state. They resolved that dilemma with a two-house structure for the legislature.

The Senate has equal representation of two votes per state and terms of six years. (Ironically, the six-year term was supposed to shield them against capricious shifts in public opinion.)

The House of Representatives is based upon population, with each elected congressman serving a two-year term.

Of course, that opened up another can of worms. Southern states wanted to count slaves in those population numbers. Northern states, of course, did not agree.

Once again, the delegates hammered out what became the three-fifths compromise, recognizing slaves as 60 percent of a person for purposes of counting population.

Alexander Hamilton, a favorite of modern conservatives, advocated a life term for the president. James Madison wanted to give the federal legislature power to veto state laws. Would Pence encourage Hamilton and Madison to hold firm?

When the final states refused to ratify the new Constitution, the founders once again, yes, compromised and added the Bill of Rights.

The founders, of course, failed to compromise on many things — primarily that the nation would be run by wealthy white men.

They did not negotiate with Abigail Adams on her call to empower women. They did not cooperate with Native Americans, free or enslaved black Americans, nor any male not wealthy enough to own property.

Thankfully, though, noteworthy politicians since have found the strength to compromise.

Woodrow Wilson supported the 19th amendment ensuring women’s suffrage in exchange for Carrie Chapman Catt’s support of World War I.

In 1964, the 24th amendment abolishing the poll tax joined the Constitution after the compromise that it would only apply to federal, not state elections (a court case two years later extended it to states).

Perhaps the problem is that Pence does not understand compromise. He seems to believe mistakenly that it is synonymous with weakness.

On the contrary, compromise is the hard-won path to the high road. In “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Atticus Finch explained a compromise as “an agreement reached by mutual concessions.” In other words: You give a little; you get a little.

So, Pence and political folks on both sides of the aisle, do not think of compromise as weakness. Rather, think of it as your job. Compromise involves respect for your foe.

In the setting of the United States Congress, compromise means respect for all your constituents.