Polarization Saves You From Qanon-DEI

The Two Types of Compromise

There are two types of compromise: one which created our civilization and one at the foundation of our bipartisan political mythology. 

If you think positively of compromise, you’re probably thinking of the compromise of exchange. I give you this, you give me that. It doesn’t have to be material, but it often is. It by definition results in inequality; there’s no use exchanging two identical things. This is not just the logic of markets and investments, but also the logic of new deal era politics. Sure, you might call that corruption, but it in many cases resulted in senators putting federal money being put in the right place for their state. 

This is not the compromise of modern politics (outside of small localities) or cable television. Instead it is the second type of compromise: the compromise of norms. What separates the two? Norms cannot be transferred, created, or destroyed. They have to be enforced on everyone, or almost everyone at the very least, for them to hold. They must be universal.

What’s the problem with compromising on norms? While the compromise of exchange is driven by self interest, the compromise of norms is driven by imposition on others. Robin Hanson theorizes that the sacred are treated as distant, unknowable things precisely because they are used to homogenize norms. Exchange is driven by differentiation: the seller of a stock and the buyer of a stock disagree on whether its price will increase. Norms are driven by homogeneity. No one ever negotiates for a norm used to restrict themselves.

The striking conclusion: the norms driven by rational self-interest are negotiated away. And the corollary: those driven by emotion and collective delusion triumph.

Brian, why does this matter at all? What I’m telling you is that our current polarization is a gift. A compromise between Democrats and Republicans doesn’t look like a moderate Democrat or Republican; it looks like someone who thinks that whites oppress blacks AND that the election was stolen. 

Maybe that compromise doesn’t sound realistic. It’s as incoherent as giving special privileges to gay and trans over normal people in the same breath as giving exemptions only to openly religious groups. Wait a minute, that is the current policy of the United States government! And it is precisely a result of this process of compromise of norms. Social liberals are motivated by the conspiracy theory that sexual minorities are oppressed (despite gay men earning more than straight men). Social conservatives are motivated by siege mentality and religious tribalism. Their politicians want to be seen fighting for Christians. So the compromise of norms is that you get both. Who is worst off? The normal person who wants to run a normal business. 

Once you gain this perspective, it becomes clear that ‘compromise’ means two entirely different things with almost precisely opposite outcomes. Compromise of exchange leads to prosperity. Compromise of norms leads to the rule by the most emotional. 

I dance on the grave of the compromise of norms. Note that the compromise of exchange is alive and well. Political betting markets are bigger than ever. Congress gets things done as long as it isn’t for the cameras. But the precise compromise that has been eroded is the kind of compromise that led to the dreadful social policies and norms of the modern American age, with the affirmative action state, feminization, and biology denial on one side and the war on drugs, paranoid airport security, and neo-puritanism on the other. A petty objection is that there’s no “airport security + affirmative action” bill. Firstly, anyone with any knowledge of political deal making knows that secretly swapping votes is possible. Secondly, this type of bill absolutely exists. In fact, the largest ones are passed every single year. The most famous is fittingly called the budget reconciliation bill.