"Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship"

Compromise is likened to an umbrella, useful for temporary protection, but insufficient as a permanent shelter like a roof. The analogy draws a distinction between compromise as a short-term solution versus a foundation for lasting decisions. An umbrella shields from immediate downpours, but cannot stand in place of a sturdy roof designed for ongoing protection. The suggestion is that while compromise may effectively address a pressing issue or provide a quick resolution, it cannot sustain the integrity or durability required for long-term policy or leadership.

Lowell differentiates between two spheres, party politics and statesmanship. In the realm of party politics, compromise is often praised as a practical tactic. The goal in politics is frequently to achieve consensus, maintain alliances, and move legislation forward, even if it means settling for less than one's ideals. The fleeting nature of these political victories mirrors the temporary shelter of the umbrella. Such compromises may be necessary to keep the machinery of government moving, to avoid paralysis, or to preserve unity within a party or between opposing factions. However, when it comes to the responsibility of statesmanship, the broader guidance and leadership of a nation or society, the text warns that reliance on compromise can be misguided or even harmful.

True statesmanship, as suggested, demands vision, principle, and decisions designed to stand the test of time. When leaders compromise on foundational values or on issues of great moral or structural importance, the result can be unstable or weak governance. Decisions of lasting significance may require firmness, courage, and adherence to core beliefs, even in the face of opposition or temporary inconvenience. Lowell implies that only by building on solid principles, rather than patchwork agreements, can a society create lasting stability and justice. Thus, compromise is not devalued entirely, but its role is placed in context: useful for immediate needs and political maneuvering, but insufficient for laying the strong and permanent structures of good governance.