REMOND: Compromise is necessary, both in politics as well as life
Column: Unironically Utopian
When reading "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro you learn quite a lot of things. Of course, you learn about the life of the infamous Robert Moses and his tragic history, but even though Moses’ story was under the main spotlight, the book also presents us with other and equally as important information. One of these things is reform and compromise. In the first few sections, we quickly learn that the principal issue several reformers faced — and still face today — is not being able to compromise.
Moses began his professional life as a young reformer in New York City. He was really eager for change, yet like most New York state reformers in the 1920s, he was not able to make much progress. Moses was really frustrated by this as he had several ideas and was never able to pass them.
Later in the book, we are introduced to Belle Moskowitz. She was also a Progressive reformer in the early 20th century, who was part of former Democratic New York Gov. Al Smith’s administration. She played a key role in Moses’ path to power. Regardless of this, she was different from other Progressive reformers at the time. The main difference was that she actually got things done. Her secret? Compromise.
While other reformers would not cooperate unless everything they wanted was done, Moskowitz would. Moskowitz knew what kind of world we lived in, and she used this knowledge well. She knew it was going to be impossible to get all the things she wanted at the same time, so she did it incrementally. Many reformers did not want to associate with any individual that did not represent the causes they eagerly supported.
The problem with this strategy was that they were closing the doors to potential opportunities too quickly. Moskowitz was aware that power was the main thing needed to achieve change, and in order to achieve this, she had to compromise.
She might have favored bills or new legislation that did not fully represent her views, but she was still able to find a few small things that she could get behind and get passed. At first sight, it might not seem like a lot, but in the long run, it represents an incredible amount of progress.
Little by little, she was able to make significant progress in the state of New York. Achieving in her lifetime important reforms for labor, education and social issues. Was she a bad person because she compromised? What can history say about all these past reformers who preached about reform and change but could not achieve any significant progress themselves? At the end of the day, who helped more people?
Please do not misunderstand me — you might be advocating for the noblest cause, you might be 100 percent correct while your opponent is 100 percent wrong. But why do all the noblest intentions matter if at the end of the day you achieve nothing? All of these are important questions we have to ask ourselves when talking about compromise.
We have to realize that we are not going to be able to have everything we want instantly, at least not the entire pie. In some cases, compromising is the only way to achieve anything of substance. The latter does not make you worse — it makes you someone who understands what needs to be done in order to do actual change. It makes you someone who understands the world we live in.
Of course, I am not saying that if you have a one-in-a-million opportunity to not use it, by all means, take advantage of it. Yet it is most probable you will never encounter something like this. In the meantime, you will have to compromise.
Consequently, do not feel down when you are advocating for change, and you have to play along with the status quo you are eagerly trying to change in order to achieve it. This will not mean you betrayed your values or made yourself a hypocrite. In several instances, there is no other way around it. That is why it is the status quo. The vital factor is that you are not accepting the reality, but reforming it — even if only a little.
The power of compromise will not only help us in our professional lives but also in our personal lives too. Professionally, it might lead us to achieve much-needed consensus with opposing parties on critical issues we might encounter. In our personal lives, it might help us improve our personal relationships — the same logic is applied.
Remember, compromising is not defeat or acceptance of the status quo. Compromising is only the first small step of several to come. Hence the teaching Moskowitz gives us still stands: better to have little change than to have no change. At the end of the day, slow and steady wins the race.
Marcelo Remond is a junior in the School of Engineering majoring in civil engineering and minoring in urban planning and design. His column, "Unironically Utopian," runs on alternate Thursdays.
*Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
YOUR VOICE | The Daily Targum welcomes submissions from all readers. Due to space limitations in our print newspaper, letters to the editor must not exceed 900 words. Guest columns and commentaries must be between 700 and 900 words. All authors must include their name, phone number, class year and college affiliation or department to be considered for publication. Please submit via email to oped@dailytargum.com by 4 p.m. to be considered for the following day’s publication. Columns, cartoons and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of the Targum Publishing Company or its staff.
