No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without

“No party has a monopoly on wisdom. No democracy works without compromise. But when Governor Romney and his allies in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficit by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy – well, you do the math. I refuse to go along with that. And as long as I'm President, I never will.” These words from Barack Obama express a deep truth about the nature of governance and democracy. In his speech, Obama acknowledges the necessity of compromise in a democratic society, but he also draws a firm line against policies that disproportionately favor the wealthy while ignoring the broader needs of society. Obama's assertion that no single party holds a monopoly on wisdom emphasizes that true governance requires balance, fairness, and the willingness to make tough decisions for the greater good.

The ancients understood the delicate balance of wisdom and compromise in governance. In Rome, the Senate was the heart of democracy, where the representatives of different classes came together to shape the future of the Republic. Yet, Cicero and other Roman philosophers warned that no government can survive without compromise. The Senate, while initially a place of deep discussion and intellectual rigor, was often torn between the plebeians and the patricians—the common people and the elite. Cicero wrote about the tension between these two forces, recognizing that no policy could be enacted without the compromise of interests. However, he also saw the danger of favoring the elite too much, as this could lead to corruption and the downfall of the Republic.

In Obama’s words, we see a reflection of this ancient wisdom: a true democracy cannot function without compromise, but it must also recognize that the pursuit of justice and the health of the nation requires the balance of interests. His rejection of the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy could somehow benefit the broader population is a modern echo of Plato’s belief that the ideal government should focus on the common good, not the enrichment of a privileged few. In Plato’s Republic, he argued that a ruler must act in the best interest of the state as a whole, and not be swayed by the desires of the powerful. Obama’s words reflect this principle: he will not allow compromise to serve the few at the expense of the many.

Consider the story of Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Roosevelt faced immense opposition from wealthy business interests, yet his commitment to the New Deal policies—meant to relieve the suffering of the masses—demonstrated his dedication to compromise and the greater good. Roosevelt knew that balancing the needs of the wealthy with the needs of the suffering majority was not easy. Yet, his compromise resulted in critical reforms that helped restore the nation’s economy and ensured a more equitable distribution of wealth. Obama, like Roosevelt, is faced with the challenge of making tough decisions, often walking a fine line between compromise and standing firm on principles that protect the well-being of the many.

In Obama’s speech, the message is clear: compromise is an essential aspect of democracy, but when the wealthy are given disproportionate power to influence tax policy, it is no longer a democracy that serves the common good. It becomes a system where the rich grow wealthier, while the deficit balloons, and the needs of the poor and middle class are ignored. His refusal to accept policies that would further enrich the already powerful is a stand for a democracy that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. In this, Obama embodies the wisdom of the ancients, who taught that compromise should never be at the expense of justice.

In conclusion, Obama’s words remind us that democracy is not simply about compromise, but about ensuring that the wisdom of the leaders is guided by the principles of justice, fairness, and the common good. As Cicero and Plato taught, the greatest form of governance arises not when compromise is abandoned, but when it is carefully balanced with a deep commitment to equity and moral responsibility. Just as the Roman Republic faltered when the elite were allowed to dominate the Senate, so too will modern democracies fail when the wealthy are given unchecked power.