Because individuals have differing preferences, personalities, and capabilities, compromise is often required for the maintenance of good relationships, whether between husband and wife, between coworkers, or between organizations.
However, it is vital that we are aware that there are areas in which compromise is acceptable, and areas in which compromise is unacceptable.
Most things in life don't really matter. There is no reasonable moral difference between eating at Carl's Jr. or eating at Jack in the Box, so if my wife would rather go to Jack in the Box, I can accept that plan without violating my moral standards. I'll just get my Western Bacon Cheeseburger a different day.
Even in government, there are areas in which compromise is acceptable and a difference of opinion does not mean a conflict between good and evil. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States has been formally established to be composed of nine members. Some people may be of the opinion that eleven members would be a better configuration. Each configuration may have its pros and cons. One configuration may even be more effective than the other. However, neither has a fundamentally superior moral nature.
On the other hand, there are areas in which no compromise is ever acceptable. Issues of morality (in the broad sense of the term) are absolutes. For example, there may be a variety of concrete methods to protect my liberty, such as different organizational structures of the military. Each may be valid and effective to differing degrees. There can be differing opinions and compromise in that structure. On the other hand, my right to my liberty is an absolute. A compromise that would institute an organizational structure of the military that violates that right is not acceptable.
The specific structure of a government is another example. A congress and a parliament both have benefits and drawbacks. One may be more effective than the other, or they may be equally as effective. The number of branches of a government may be one, or two, or three, or four, or more. There is room to compromise in those areas. However, there is no room for compromise when it comes to my right to my property. Whether under a congress, or a parliament, or a monarchy, or anarchy, any violation of my absolute right to my property is unacceptable.
When so-called conservatives "reach across the aisle" to compromise with Democrats, the compromise is almost always one-sided. The Democrats get more of what they want, and conservatives get less of what they want, and more of what they don't want. In other words, the Democrats get more control over the lives of the people, and conservatives get less liberty, lose more of their property, and have a more difficult time maintaining and protecting their own lives.
Some will say that we are making progress when we get a little of what we want rather than getting none at all. This is what I have heard from establishment Republicans for many years. However, it is an illusion. We are not gaining anything at all when we make such compromises. The default setting is our absolute right to our lives, our liberty, and our property. Any time even a little of that is given up, we lose what we already own and we regress. There should never be any lessening of those rights, and any time we compromise in those areas, we not only accept that loss, but we are actively participating in creating that loss.
Compromising on moral issues means that we are de facto supporters of an immoral position.
It is never acceptable to compromise with the Devil. If we do, he wins, every time.