Is Political Compromise Even Possible?

Obama is saying, at least in some venues, that he wants to "work with" the GOP. We hear calls for "compromise." In fact, a recent poll shows that 75% of voters want political compromise.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020945-503544.html

In a sample of 1,1,89 random respondents polled from October 21-26, 2010, 75 percent of likely voters - and 66 percent of Republicans - said that, if the GOP wins control of Congress, the party should compromise some of its positions to get things done. Seventy-one percent of all voters, and 79 percent of Republicans, said that Obama should compromise given the possibility of a GOP takeover.

As I said, Obama is talking about compromising in SOME venues. In others, he is saying that the GOP can "come along for the ride," but they can't drive... indicating that his idea of compromise is everybody doing what he wants them to do.

And future Speaker of the House John Boehner is specifically stating that the GOP compromising their positions and ideals will not happen.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44311.html

“This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles,” Boehner said.

The Ohio Republican said the GOP would work with Obama “to the extent the president wants to work with us, in terms of our goals.”

This raises a question: Is compromise really even possible?


In some areas, I think it is. In others, deadlock is more likely. Why? Because it is impossible to compromise given two diametrically opposed central positions.

Assume that one party truly wants a larger government with higher spending levels and more involvement in the private sector. Further assume that the other party truly wants smaller government, lower spending, and fewer regulations. Where is compromise possible? Keeping the government the same size is no solution, as that simply perpetuates our current debt problem and guarantees our eventual bankruptcy.

Given this situation, where is compromise possible? Growing government in one area and shrinking it in another isn't a solution. If government stays the same,we face eventual bankruptcy. If the "compromise" results in an overall growth or shrinkage of government, one side or the other will oppose it.

So, assuming that both sides have been honest and sincere about the course they will pursue over the next two years (I know, that's a BIG assumption), where is the possibility for compromise?

I submit that compromise may be possible on some small issues, but gridlock is the likely result on most major issues.