As we’ve already seen in this series, democracy can be described in poetic, spiritual, or analytical terms. And even if one sticks to the analytical, differing images will emerge as one changes the focus from the individual to the group and from there to the organization or nation. If you think about for a minute, in a society in which the people rule, that variety seems appropriate.
Still, if democracy is to be a living thing, a functioning way of life, it also requires some unity, and that extends to our very understanding of the word itself. Perhaps the closest we have come in our history to a shared understanding of democracy is to define it as a particular kind of transaction: compromise.
Asked in Philadelphia what principles were to guide the government he and the other founders were inventing, James Madison (famous for noting that “If men were angels, they would not need government”) replied: “They are three: compromise, compromise, and compromise.” The central design features of the US Constitution Madison had such a big hand in drafting–federalism and the separation of powers–were a direct application of these principles.
Half a century later, Henry Clay, who fought for decades to prevent the outbreak of the Civil War, explained the need for give and take this way: “All legislation is founded upon the principle of mutual concession. Let him who elevates himself above humanity say if he pleases ‘I never will compromise.'”
So for Madison and Clay, because no one is infallible, leaders must compromise. Applying the same reasoning to citizens yields a rough and ready democratic ethos.
