Judge D. Brooks Smith:
As a judge, I’m not permitted to have an opinion on politics. And given current events, most of the time I would prefer not to have an opinion of a political nature. But my response to your inquiry would be that, of course, compromise is a virtue. Of course compromise is a good thing.
Mr. David Shribman:
I could argue whether we should compromise on abortion? Should we compromise on slavery? Should we compromise on taxes? Where is the line? How do you make that decision?
Ms. Sondra Myers:
We might not have had a Constitution if we didn’t compromise on slavery.
Judge D. Brooks Smith:
But it does seem to me as a distant observer that the current political order has a very significant element of “no compromise,” and the view that this position of “no compromise” is a virtue. It is impossible for me to imagine participation, especially as a decision maker, in a pluralistic society without the notion of compromise being a very significant aspect of one’s means of doing business.
Mr. David Shribman:
But if I could ask our moderator, should we have compromised—should they have compromised at Munich in 1938? Should there have been a compromise of the Holocaust? I mean, these are very hard questions.
Ms. Sondra Myers:
They are. There is nothing absolute about compromise, the nature of it or the occasion for it. Some compromises are morally reprehensible and have deadly results. And some are pragmatic solutions to tough problems. Politics is almost defined by compromise but obviously not by the deadly, immoral kind.
Mr. David Shribman: Right.
14