Take abortion- one of the most debated topics in 21st century America. On the liberal/progressive side, the position is that abortion is an issue of a woman’s right to her own body. Surely no conservative or traditionalist would oppose that a woman could get a haircut, and yet they oppose abortion. On the conservative/traditionalist side, the position is that abortion is the murder of an innocent human being and is typically done for matters of convenience or expediency. Surely no liberal or progressive would oppose the punishment of murderers, especially for killing innocents.
The problem on many issues is that there is no middle ground. To compromise for one side is to be “half evil” (granted not both sides believe evil actually exists).
For gun control, one side believes more restrictions will prevent violent crime and other other thinks more restrictions will do nothing at best and at worst will create violent crime. Incidentally, “Assault Weapons” were banned for over a decade, and there was no change in violent crimes committed with them as they are rarely used in crimes, and yet the debate still rages around them for some reason.
For welfare, one side believes it creates unhealthy dependency and the other side believes it prevents unhealthy destitution. For redistribution of wealth, one side believes it is socially just, while the other believes it is morally unjust. For racial quotas, one side believes they make the world fair and the other side believes they make the natural into the artificial to mask reality.
In all of those cases, to take a “compromise” is to betray yourself. In those cases, it would be dishonest to compromise.
While compromise in some situations can be a good approach, one must first determine if compromise is a valid position. So often, we don’t take the time to do that.