
Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is
Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.






The words of James Russell Lowell — “Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof…” — unveil the double-edged nature of compromise. He teaches that in the storms of conflict, a temporary shelter may indeed be wise, shielding men from the fury of the moment. Yet as a permanent dwelling, such shelter fails, for no nation or people can live forever beneath an umbrella. The wisdom of statesmanship demands more than expedience; it demands foundations strong enough to withstand the weight of time.
To call compromise an umbrella is to acknowledge its usefulness in fleeting quarrels and party disputes. Within the realm of politics, where factions clash and tempers flare, a half-measure may cool the fire long enough for peace to return. But when the question is one of principle, of justice, of the very soul of a people, then compromise becomes dangerous. For if leaders build their house upon it, the first great wind of history will tear it down.
The origin of Lowell’s wisdom may be seen most clearly in the story of the American Civil War. For decades, the United States sought to resolve the question of slavery with compromise — the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and others. Each acted as a temporary umbrella, sheltering the nation from immediate collapse. Yet none could serve as a roof, for slavery was a wound that demanded either healing or death. At last the storm broke, and only through war, not compromise, could the Union endure. Thus Lowell’s words stand proven in blood and fire.
The ancients, too, understood this truth. When confronted with matters of eternal weight — justice, freedom, the dignity of the human spirit — they taught that one must build with stone, not straw. Expedience may save a life in the moment, but only principle saves generations. The leader who mistakes compromise for permanence may gain peace today, but he sows discord for tomorrow.
Therefore, O seekers of wisdom, use compromise as the traveler uses the umbrella: a shield for the passing storm. But when you build the house of your people, raise walls of principle and lay the roof with truth. For only such shelter can endure the tempests of history. And let this be the eternal lesson of Lowell’s words: what is wise in party politics may prove ruinous in statesmanship, and the true leader must know the difference.
KT8/4 Ngo Kieu Tram
I find this quote quite thought-provoking, especially when applied to modern-day politics. It’s easy to criticize compromise, but in a deeply divided political system, can we really afford to avoid it? While compromise might not be the perfect solution, does that mean it’s still necessary for progress? How do we reconcile the need for compromise with the desire for more decisive, visionary leadership?
PHnguyen vu phu hung
It’s curious that Lowell calls compromise a good umbrella but a poor roof. It feels like he’s saying that while compromise might provide temporary shelter, it doesn’t provide the strong foundation needed for long-term success. But in real-world politics, is it even possible to avoid compromise? When you have diverse interests and opinions at play, how does a leader make bold decisions without risking alienating key groups?
ATLe Thi Anh Thi
This quote made me think about how politicians sometimes trade their core values for the sake of short-term progress. Is compromise just a way of avoiding conflict, or does it reflect a lack of courage to take a firm stand on key issues? Could the reluctance to embrace uncompromising decisions contribute to a lack of real change? Maybe what we need is less compromise and more clarity of purpose.
ATAnh Tuan
Compromise in politics is such a tricky subject. On one hand, it’s about finding common ground, but on the other, it sometimes feels like we settle for less than what we deserve. Can a good statesman ever avoid compromise, though? When faced with deeply divided opinions, how does one maintain integrity without compromising on crucial issues? Maybe the real challenge is finding the balance between necessary compromise and principled leadership.
TV7C-Nguyen tran the vinh
It’s interesting how Lowell contrasts compromise in party politics versus statesmanship. In a way, isn’t compromise necessary to get anything done in today’s highly polarized political environment? But I can see his point that if leaders are constantly compromising, it could mean they’re not taking bold action. Can a true leader afford to compromise too often, or does it undermine their ability to make meaningful, lasting decisions?