Watching a Sunday morning news program, I heard Democratic Senator John Kerry and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch answering a question about what made Ted Kennedy such a superb legislator and senator.  Both offered stories about Kennedy’s passion and pragmatism.

They said he went after what he wanted with strong will and passion; that he did everything he possibly could to get the bill he wanted, to achieve what he set out to do.  They said you could always see that practice in him and it was admirable.  However, what impressed them even more was that once it was completely clear that what he wanted was not going to happen as he wanted it, he’d swiftly switch his methods and seek the best bill to create good for as many people as possible.  

Kennedy believed fervently in his causes and set out to champion them with as much vigor and grace as he possibly could.  However, in politics, as in real life, he knew that to get some of what you want or believe is better than to get none of it.  From his prolific creation of legislation and from the stories one hears about the man, Kennedy was a realist and knew this.

So, a great art, then, is compromise.  If in working to create something, we change the very nature of what we want or are creating, one is better off dropping that work and starting anew.  However, if we can contain the essence and still offer something of value, than we do well to go with less than we intended.  

The art of political compromise is very much at the forefront of our daily lives in the current debate on Health Care, an issue that was of extraordinary importance to Ted Kennedy.  The commentators on this Sunday show pondered about who could use this skill as well as Kennedy to accomplish the creation of a bill that could be molded into creation and still be good for most Americans.

So many people I talk with seem to think that our politicians are worse than ever about being cantankerous and vicious against their opponents.  Actually, our founding fathers set the example of this kind of behavior.  They were brutal.  Yet, the beauty that came out of that passion and the compromise that arose is astonishing and of unparalleled achievement.

I, myself, tire of the degree of nastiness between extreme political opponents.  However, I do remind myself that at least we have debate.  We have the freedom of extensive debate.  That debate is the father of compromise.  And, compromise is sire of good and accomplishment.  Will we pass a Health Care bill?  These Senators thought so and so do I.

Will it be perfect?  Of course not!  John Updike wrote, “Perfectionism is the enemy of creation…” 

I often observe an obsession in many of my Optimal Level members that drives them to seek perfection.  Yet the striving nearly causes paralysis or exhausts them in their efforts.  I am a leading proponent of the 80% rule.  If I can do 80% of the job, I feel I have done well.  I ask for 100% commitment in intention and endeavor; however, I am happy if my members do the job 80% well. With the caliber of people to whom I refer, excellence is often the norm.  Therefore, their 80% achievement is very satisfying.  I prefer to see compromise in result rather than paralysis or destruction.

If the majority of intention is accomplished, if the good sought is still mainly intact, if the recipient of the project is happy, and so on, I believe progress is made and we are all better off for it.  So, without the eloquence of perfection and perhaps with less than 80% of linguistic desirability, I say as I did when I started, pooh to perfection!