Hardly a day goes by that I don't see some pundit or political cartoonist write about how things would be much better if Republicans and Democrats just compromised on things like the border wall, the implication being that both sides are acting like stubborn children. What these pundits do not seem to understand---or fail to engage their brains to realize--- is that compromise is only a viable solution to a problem when the distance between the parties' positions is relatively small. Children may indeed refuse to compromise even when the differences are small but this is a false equivalence to the situation for adults where it is far more likely that it is not mere stubbornness but rather a realization that the differences are way too big to make compromise a viable solution.
Let me give an example to illustrate. Suppose you decide to sell your car. You do some research and decide it's worth around $5000. A buyer comes along but this buyer thinks your car is worth only about $400. He is willing to "compromise" and give you $500.
If for some reason you end up selling it to him for $500, there are many names that could be used to describe this transaction but "compromise" would not be one of them. More appropriate would be words like "utter capitulation", "surrender", "highway robbery", "being taken to the cleaners","being screwed" but not "compromise". Compromise would in fact be an oxymoron in this situation.
So what about splitting the difference and selling it for $2700 ? Then you would simply have both sides feeling they had been utterly screwed. With a gap this big, there can only be rejection or surrender by one or both sides, not compromise. It is not a matter of being stubborn or petulant. Compromise is simply not viable.
So what is the solution in situations like these ? First, reject simplistic false equivalence arguments that the two sides are acting like children and just need to grow up. The underlying problems are likely much deeper and compromise is simply not a viable solution, especially if the situation has been thoroughly discussed and no “compromise” arises. Instead ultimately, one side must win and one must lose. If we want to ensure that the progressive solution wins, we must win the argument by sheer numbers, not by hoping for some illusory compromise. This is especially true when it comes to dealing with the current crop of Republicans who attempt to win not by having the better solution but by lying and manipulation of the voting public.