MikeLortz.com/JordiScrubbings.com

From the little I watch the national cable news networks, there are two huge issues plaguing our great nation. In one part of the country, we have a horrific oil spill caused by an uncontrolled industry who stops at nothing to squeeze every drop out of mother nature, even if it means catastrophically ruining every ecosystem in a 1000 mile radius.

Then, on the other side of this great land, we have an infestation of foreigners swarming through each and every crevice of our terribly porous border and attaching themselves to our neighborhoods, towns, cities, and public support systems. These leeches from the lower latitudes are unfairly suckling off the bosom of Lady Liberty and milking her dry.

To defend us against these two great plagues we have a bastion of public servants, many eager to pass laws that put the immediate and unrepentant stop to the floods debilitating our fair way of life.

In other words, from what I can gather, one political party is all for banning offshore drilling and the other wholeheartedly supports local rule of law on immigration.

And both are willing to go to court to ensure their way is the only way.

Yikes.

What happened to compromise, that ol’ great American tradition of giving a little to get a little? Where went the skill of bartering in public policy? When did politics become a zero-sum game?

That’s sad.

Ok, here is what I would like to see happen:

I would like to see one political party acquiesce to wholesale acceptance of their ideals. To bring back the days of  compromise seen during the 19th century. Sure, our most famous compromise,  The 3/5 Compromise, made a race of people less than whole, but as an ideal, compromise is a good thing.

I would like to see politicians create a policy that trades oil drilling privileges for states’ rights on immigration. Instead of holding tightly to their ideals for the sake of their party, policy makers could tackle two issues at one time.

For example, what would be wrong with banning 80% of offshore drilling in exchange for a state being responsible for 80% of categories of immigrants trying to get into the nation through that state’s borders?

I know that is an awkward comparison, but by going to the table and being willing to give on the issues, policy makers have a better of chance of getting something and avoiding their law going to court, where issues are seen as yes or no, guilty or innocent, black or white, or life or death. There is no compromise in the judicial system, and that is a good thing.

The problem is that politicians are scared to bend on issues because they fear doing so would alienate them from their core voters and their financial contributions. Politicians fear they will voted out or even worse, lose party funding. But compromise is what America is founded on. Without it, we have a flurry of continuous fringe-funded uncompromising jostling, law flip-flopping, and a general loss of an overarching American vision.

Perhaps one way to consider an “offshore drilling ban for states’ rights on immigration law” compromise would be to consider the affect on regional economies. To turn people to dollars. How many economic dollars/jobs would be lost with continued oil spills? How many jobs would be lost with a continued flow of illegal immigrants? How many dollars would continued to be spent on public services for there illegal residents?

Comparing dollars to dollars and bringing back the Art of Compromise. It sounds so simple.

Of course, such a scenario would mean policy makers would have to agree on the economic numbers. Which is a whole other bag of worms.