Why Is Compromise A Dirty Word By Deborah Tannen Analysis

In the article “Why is ‘Compromise’ a Dirty Word?” written by Deborah Tannen, she discusses how the government isn’t able to get anything done because nobody compromises. The two parties we have need to give a little extra to make the ideas they have somewhat fit the oppositions need. This article explains how the two-party system is full of stubborn politicians who don’t compromise with the other party. Tannen shows this using a mixture of rhetorical devices, with the most common being ethos. A popular name is John Boehner, who was the Speaker of the House during Barack Obama’s presidency. She brings up Henry Clay using pathos in this statement; “In 1820, his Missouri Compromise stemmed the spread of slavery” (Tennan). Using this quote, she brings back the struggle that occured during the Civil Rights …show more content…
Most people think citizens should explicitly belong to one side or the other. However, that’s not how it works and that’s not how it will ever work. Some people are in the middle, some are closer to one side or the other but don’t totally agree with one or the other. In reality, we have thousands of parties closely related. This is it’s hard to accomplish anything. The indecisiveness of the people make compromising impossible to achieve. Instead of arguing a topic for years, one of the parties should slightly change the idea to make it sound better to the other party in order to get them to agree. If a party doesn’t compromise, then trust is lost, as said in this statement; “That trust is exactly what is threatened when the very notion of compromise is rejected” (Tannen). Two parties fighting for control of our country with no winner is what is happening in the present and what will continue to happen in the future. Without one side compromising something of their own, the other side will not agree because then they would lose their control of the