John Curtis’ Post

At what point does compromise transition to submission? Regardless of your answer to this question, open dialogue (not discussion--see Peter Senge for the difference in dialogue vs. discussion) is necessary to help citizens understand how you develop your decisions. Your weekly "highs and lows note" is entertaining, but that venue needs an improvement in helping voters understand your decision processes: what facts you used to develop your decisions; what facts were used by others that differed from yours; and, how you reconciled those differences to derive your decision or support for a particular position. You owe your constituents the "why" of your decisions despite the behavior of many politicians to ignore sharing this insight or to go into "messaging mode" to avoid directly responding to questions. Please avoid the elitist mode wherein you believe that you acted in the best interests of your constituents without providing rationale for those actions, a common behavior by many of our Utah politicians.

I think your wrong. It was a stance of no compromise that lead to the Revolutionary War. One should never sacrifice one's moral or ethics to appease or placate those who choose to live immoral or unethical lifestyles. Law and order has to be maintained

Representative, the devil is in the details, of which you've supplied none. That seems to be the art you've cultivated to win a Senate seat. For example, here's a detail: You and your GOP colleagues have offered nothing in the way of compromise or even a modicum of support for Bears Ears National Monument; only partisan boilerplate, reflecting a desire, apparently, for unfettered recreational access to even the most fragile sites within the monument and a total disregard of tribal co-stewardship and the importance of including in the plan Indigenous knowledge and protecting Native traditions. It's only "drill baby drill," which is just sloganeering because in the Bears Ears case at least, there's "very little energy potential within monument," according the Utah Geological Survey. Will you offer anything but total allegiance to the Trump administration as it dismantles national monuments to pave the way for more and more unregulated and destructive tourism and recreation? https://jackdog3.medium.com/submitted-for-your-consideration-a-bears-ears-management-plan-commentary-by-bill-keshlear-575518bf8ba7

I believe what you label “compromise” is more accurately described as “negotiation”. The difference might be that both parties walk away feeling the loser under “compromise”. Both parties as winners under “negotiation”. Some might consider “negotiation” as an “art”. Good luck Senator. We expect great things.

Compromise is a given in politics. I compromise in my participation in a two-party system. I’ve compromised with every candidate I’ve selected. I compromised in this election because I am tired of virtue signaling statements and calls for compromise that have a chilling effect on my free speech. I appreciate and understand your call for compromise and wish you success in serving the people of Utah. I think you should reconsider these early messages on compromise. I think you are receiving bad political advise.

Thank you for sharing this perspective. As someone from Utah with more liberal views, I genuinely appreciate hearing this. I’ve long admired and respected leaders like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Jeff Flake, and many other Republican figures. However, in recent years, I’ve often felt alienated and disheartened by some of the rhetoric within the party. I believe that embracing a diversity of opinions and showing mutual respect is a cornerstone of what makes our country great and unique. It’s a principle deeply valued by the founding fathers, and I appreciate you championing this approach.

we elected you to keep Pres Trump agenda.

In her outstanding 1918 book on politics The New State, Mary Parker Follett made the observation that conflict gets resolved in one of three ways: domination (one side wins), compromise (neither side gets what they really want), and integration (both sides get what they really want, even though they may not have realized the possibility for that when they started the conversation). Taking a cue from Follett, it seems that too often, our culture celebrates mere compromise and doesn't seek integration. Compromise is certainly better than domination (when it comes to a polarized American politics), but consider integration. Pursuing integration of interests requires exploring what it is that deep down we really need and want (which is not always obvious), and then being open to creative, win-win solutions (and Follett coined that term, BTW). Of course, this takes openness and time and a desire to find the best solution, not the most politically expedient one.

Thanks for your common-sense approach to legislating and governing. That's why you have been so successful and have so much support among voters.

Compromise does not mean giving up one’s principles or ethics. It is listening, analyzing, and considering the views of others and coming together on issues where we agree, that are beneficial to our country and then moving forward. I appreciate John Curtis’ listening ear, view to the future and desire to serve for the good of the country.