Many people have complained of late about the lack of compromise in our elected government. It has been said that the problem in Washington is an inability to concede anything to the opposition or simply to identify common ground. But I think the problem may be language.

Some years ago I read a book about how dogs communicate. What struck me as remarkable was the fact that dog “language” is quite constant across all species of dogs. A tail wag, a raised ear, or a show of teeth always communicated the same message. A British terrier has no problem communicating with an Irish bulldog. Now, if we humans could replicate the same feat in our communication, it would be considered a real breakthrough in international relations and especially in our congressional negotiations. Elsewhere I touched upon our seeming failure to communicate in the hallowed halls of Congress in terms of the misapplication of words and analogies (ref. “Words Have Meaning”). But I think the lesson canines can teach us is different.

If a dog humps your leg, its message is clear. But, as I mentioned in a recent blog, our species can simply change the meaning of something that looks like torture by calling it “enhanced interrogation.” If a dog were capable of such duplicity, I suppose its humping would be interpreted as a desire to clean your pants leg. Of course, dogs are not capable of our dishonesty in their communication. They are quite reliable in their use of dog language. We know why they hump.

Let’s move beyond “torture,” since certain people in a past Administration refuse to use that word to describe certain heinous acts committed in our name. Instead, I want to consider what has been done to the word “compromise.” Its dictionary meaning is a “settlement of differences . . . reached by mutual concession.” Its Latin derivatives—com, “together, with”, and promittere, “to promise”—strongly imply an intent or promise to come together. Now suppose you reverse the meaning. For example, the Democrats in Oregon and the Republicans in Washington State agreed not to replace the Interstate Bridge across the Columbia River after deficit hawks on the right and environmentalist on the left lobbied their representatives to do nothing. As a result salmon continue to swim unabated under a rickety old bridge that ranks as the 28th most insufficient amongst 18,984 similar bridges in the U.S.; and the states pass up $1.25 billion in federal funding for a new bridge in lieu of the $900 million it will costs the states to keep the current nearly 100 year old structure temporarily upright. The right and the left “compromised” by agreeing to do nothing. We experienced a similar “compromise” in a recent debt ceiling negotiation: the President agreed NOT to amend Obamacare and the Republicans agreed NOT to shut down the government. Currently, our government is faced with another showdown over funding for homeland security. My guess is that both sides will “compromise” on an agreement that will NOT defund or limit the Homeland Security Department and will NOT revoke the President’s executive orders affecting immigrant families. Both sides will “come together” without any concessions so that nothing will be accomplished.

The situation in Washington reminds me of the failed compromise I tried to reach with my dog. I wanted her to hold it in until I could let her out the back door. But I could not return from work early enough and she could not restrain a doggie dump on the dining room carpet. You see, we just spoke different languages—much like many of our legislators.