In several high-profile and contentious votes this year, lawmakers have been continuously pressured by party leaders, the Obama Administration, and the press to fall in line behind "reasonable" compromises, something many say is necessary in a time of divided government. But some legislators in the House of Representatives, by voting against most or all of those bills, have indicated that they do not believe that compromise is valuable in and of itself, but only when the result reflects their vision of the country's future. Indeed, historians point out that the history of compromise in the United States has been decidedly mixed, leading these scholars to wonder why compromise is currently so highly and uncritically valued. "There are examples of compromise that we look back on now and say, 'It's a good thing that happened,'" said Ross Baker, a congressional historian at Rutgers University. "But history is replete with examples of compromises that basically betrayed fundamental principles."
More