« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

No compromise.

I have grown weary of hearing the calls for bi-partisanship.  The calls for “reaching across the aisle” and “bucking your party.”  And yes, I’m even tired of that sacred word that hushes the most stubborn of partisans: Compromise.  Compromise in terms of leadership or lack thereof.  Compromise with ulterior motives and double-speak.  Compromise that hurts our country, indeed our world.

To some this is counter-intuitive and in stark contrast to the common wisdom put forth by much of the media.  But the truth is, moderation & compromise have a dark and sordid past when it comes to governing nations.  It gave us “The Great Society,” which ensured generations of poor on welfare and the end of the need for a father.  It gave us the “New Deal” & Medicare, which are quickly bankrupting our country.  It gave us the Munich Pact and the Gaza Strip.   It empowered North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons and is on a steady path to do the same with Iran.

Some would say it gave us the Constitution and the Emancipation Proclamation, but that is only partially correct.  In order for the founders to compromise with one another they had first to establish that they were immovable in their stance against King George.  For him there would be no compromise.

In order for Lincoln to bring the States back into Union, he had to stand his ground firmly and go to war with his own countrymen rather than “negotiate” or be “bi-partisan.”

It is not compromise in and of itself that has begun to wear on me.  It’s the misuse of it’s purpose.  Compromise does not exist for the purpose of mindless moderation.  It does not exist to create friends that would otherwise be enemies.

Compromise is a tool for coming to a common understanding, but there must be foundational common interests first.  If there is not, then there is nothing to negotiate if your interests are too much in contrast with one another.

Compromise presupposes that there is something you are capable of or willing to give up, which at times needs to not be the case.  It assumes that you can get what you want out of the other side without giving up so much that it destroys that which you were trying to protect.

At times, it is best not to compromise at all — to look at the opposition and determine that, not only do they not have anything to offer, but you don’t have anything you’re willing to give up.

In point of fact, you can’t have compromise if you don’t have some aspects of your position that cannot be compromised.  To paraphrase Etienne Gilson, there cannot be tolerance without dogmatism. To put it another way, if I’m offered by a murderer to be killed with either a gun or a knife, I’ll choose to not be murdered.

The solidarity of the Republicans on the issue of Tax Cuts gives me hope that the era for moderate politics and meaningless compromise may finally and at long last come to an end.  Let the era of leadership begin.

COMMENTS

  • momac

    Obama wants to raise taxes. We want to leave them alone.

    Anyway, I concur. No compromise. None.

    Can’t wait until 2012 gets closer to be able scare some of these fools into line.

  • Scope

    for everyone, however, some of those same Republicans just voted to hand the food industry over to the socialists, of course that was before their strong position on the tax rates being extended. I’m wondering what else they will give to the Democrats in exchange for the tax rates remaining the same for everyone.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      I fear what too many of our own would do on their own especially given the refusal of our own to speak out against our own! smile

      • Scope

        which I love, please don’t stop. Seems that the guts and courage is going to happen out here in the real world. I’m sick of Political Correctness, cowering in the corner, and the mistake of obeying Reagans 11th commandment. What exactly does “holding their feet to the fire” mean, if you are too afraid to hold their feet to the fire?

  • AceInTX

    After defeating Hitler in three successive run off elections which Hitler and the NAZIs refused to recognize the official results and joined with the Communists rioting across the country.

    Chancellor Von Hindenburg eventually compromised with the NAZIs and formed a coalition government with Hitler and his henchmen…until Von Hindenburg’s death when Hitler became the consensus successor.

  • AceInTX

    Von Hindenburg compromised with the NAZIs ffter defeating Hitler in three successive run off elections the NAZIs refused to recognize the official results joining with the Communists rioting across the country.

    Chancellor Von Hindenburg eventually compromised with the NAZIs and formed a coalition government with Hitler as Vice Chancellor and his henchmen in strategic positions of power

    Upon Von Hindenburg’s death Hitler became the consensus successor.

  • veritaseequitas

    It is against human nature to compromise – everyone wants their own way. Liberals know that if they can slip the noose of compromise around the necks of conservatives, eventually they will be able to cut off the oxygen of common sense and have their way. Islam knows this too. These people are dangerous and have a skewed set of values. Conservatives must never compromise with liberals. Conservatives need to learn to be better manipulators than liberals.
    If you ain’t the Gator, you’re Gator bait.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      How’d you learn to be so smart?

  • d_lamar

    Compromise by both political parties is the reason that we essentially don’t have a 10th amendment to the Constitution, and why the 2nd amendment is only hanging by a thread.

    For the past several decades, we have been ruled by politicians who have no principles, probably don’t have a clue what the US Constitution actually says, and whose only goal is to buy their re-election by bribing their voters with their own money.

    Let’s hope the tea partiers can put a stop to this mindless compromise of principles.

  • rdelbov

    by compromise and George Washington was there to bless it. Compromise as a concept is not always bad. The founding of this US states was a compromise as states united but no one got a government exactly as they wanted it. Compromise is not a dirty word when it advances Freedom.

    Not endorsing any compromise with Obama/Pelosi right now. I do admit,however, that there is a value in the Pelosi/Obama admitting that they endorse the Bush tax cuts for two years.

    I might agree to a two year extension of all of the Bush tax cuts plus some sort of budget agreement that cuts spending for 2010-2011. I am inclined to link the two. That plus an agreement to tackle Start–the senate is supposed to vote on treaties -and nothing else. No DADT and no DREAM.

    If we can get to some sort of agreement like the one I outlined I would go for.

    I would also insist that Pelosi & Reid bring a majority of theie side to the table.

    • mriggio

      theirs was the side that demanded the Bush tax cuts sunset, let them live with that. Nobody then talked about only sunsetting the cuts for ‘the rich’, which is their current position. Permanently renew the current tax rates for everyone (knowing that permanent only lasts as long as the current Congress), or allow the sunset to occur, chips falling as they may. A new Congress arrives in January.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        those of necessity and those of convenience, the latter of which can be variously described as convenience for convenience’s sake/doing nothing is not an option/can’t we all just get along. The latter are almost always bad policy and also not as amenable to assessing responsibility and blame for failure.

        Then there are those of necessity as pertains to funding the military and not much else in my book.

        What matters most to me in this Lame Duck session is that the GOP filibuster EVERYTHING but a continuing resolution to fund the government and votes to extend the tax cuts but that they not even agree to the latter unless an amendment or separate bill is offered that would extend the tax cuts indefinitely for all taxpayers. I would like to see separate votes on various tax cut extension bills to make the Democrats declare their positions on them all.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          for the rest of the government to shut down until the Dems get a clue. Meanwhile, we can go back to an America where families, churches etc were social security, unemployment relief etc rather than the feds.

      • Scope

        was the lone Republican, if I am remembering correctly, to oppose the original Bush tax cuts. Wasn’t that a killer for him in 08? Didn’t he say that it was tax cuts for the rich? Not sure that he would consider $250 thousand to be rich in these days.

  • wolfeman

    Just look at what our country looked like 234 years ago. Basically all of the change that has taken place has been because of compromise on the part of conservatives. It’s way past time to dig in our heels and just say “no more”. Either our guys on the hill have to understand this or we’re in real trouble. It’s time to make a stand and not give one more inch. In fact, it’s time to start pushing back and moving things in the other direction for a change. How do we get our congress critters to comprehend such a simple plan?

  • Mark Malcolm

    when it is the Republicans being asked to ‘compromise’ their positions.

    Where was the call to compromise on health care reform? Oh, that’s right, they not only didn’t call for compromise, they locked the Republicans out of anything to do with drafting that monstrosity of an aborted piece of legislation.

    For the past two years the only thing standing between Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Liberal Left has been……wait for it………….

    their own party

    That’s right, the only reason ANY piece of legislation wasn’t passed for the last two years was because the Blue Dogs wouldn’t get on board.

    Compromise my @$$. Every true conservative needs to stand firm on their principles just as Ronald Reagan did. Let the left ‘reach across the isle’ for a change and come to us.

  • 1stRichard

    Code word for Compromise, Bi-Partisanship, such actions are a call to bring back public tarring and feathering when it comes to our god given liberties. Compromise was Brown 41, as one of the founding members/organizers of the Tea Party here that gave you Brown 41, I saw first hand the contention and arguments over Brown 41. This and much more has depleted the acceptance of all compromise here and the bipartisanship you speak of is but part of the problem. All so called Republicans need to understand how dangerously close they are to ?pitchforks and torches? when they use bipartisanship, the frustration and anger is very real. Grown weary is a severe understatement of this problem. This can be summed up as a direction, no more left turns, no more stay the course, no more it was a little bit of what we wanted, make a hard right turn now and a stand up fight for it.

    On taxes, it should be cut all taxes in half of what we pay now and then let them show some bipartisanship, maybe we can compromise a bit then.

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      And convert their pensions to 401ks, then see if the democrats still want to steal everyone’s 401k for social insecurity.

      • The_Gadfly

        who were grandfathered. There is some other defined contribution plan now that works similarly to 401ks. I got an earful about this yesterday when the roommate got home a complained about the pay freeze.* (She actually is a hard worker. Civilian employee overseeing R&D work for the military, top of her pay grade, next step up would be pretty close to the equivalent of a political appointee and not something she wants. She did also note that she is an ME, and that while the median salary for feds is significantly higher than civies, in her particular case she is making less than the median for MEs with her experience in the private sector.) She noted the current plan is a lot more lean than the pensioner plans.

        The problems are the rest of the benefits and the deadwood. But the problem needs to be approached incrementally so the whole thing doesn’t cause more chaos in society than the current mess does. I’d go for 10% every 2 years for the next 10 years.

        The other problem is we need to stop the idea that federalles are owed pay for government shutdown days if Congresscritters don’t pass budgets or CRs. That works out to a paid vacation for them, only they don’t have to use leave to get it. Nowhere else can you get that kind of benny.

        *Don’t get me wrong, I still think the pay freeze is a necessary step. Frankly as a govt contractor with less than a year in, it is a whole lot more likely to hurt me than it is to hurt her. But neither of us are as likely to be hurting as much as a whole lot of people in flyover country.

  • robp

    Conservative definition: let’s both walk to the middle of the aisle, shake hands, and give a little, take a little, all for the good of the country, apple pie, and America, say cheese!, yada, yada, yada

    Liberal definition: you come all the way over to our side or we will break your arm and both of your legs

  • unfatmatt

    “In order for Lincoln to bring the States back into Union, he had to stand his ground firmly and go to war with his own countrymen rather than ?negotiate? or be ?bi-partisan.?”

    Umm…that was one of the bad examples of not compromising. The United States were founded in a war of secession from England. They felt they weren’t being represented. The Civil war was the same.

    I don’t seem to recall anywhere in the Constitution where the government has the right to go to war against it’s own people for the sake of “preserving the union”. Lincoln was chock full of Constitutional abuse, so he’s probably not a good one to pick for being uncompromising.

    Let’s pretend for one second that the war was in fact about freeing the slaves, Europe had abolished slavery without a single war. Lincoln refused to apply the same methods and instead chose to murder his own people.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • scottb

    .I agree with your column 100% Ben Howe.

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    Bipartisan (sic) compromise is that which a battered Obama demands the Republican party do when he is no longer dictator of America. Republicans — stupid they are — always fall for it and…compromise… instead of holding fast to principles. Will the tea party make it any different? NO! Even Republicans want the adolation of the New York Times for some imbicilic reason. That’s why the Constitution (“What is that?”) is losing along with our freedom.

    http://www.periodictablet.com

  • The_Gadfly

    I want the new law to be a permanent tax cut that inspires economic growth. By which I mean tax rates overall go down from their current December 2010 rates, not just an extension of the 2001 Bush law. And I want a fair chunk of that reduction to be in the marginal rates for investment.

    But, I’m willing to compromise all the way down to only extending ALL of the Bush tax cuts for 6 months.

    “But Gadfly, why would you want to revisit this again in 6 months? It’s been bad enough so far!”

    Because in 6 months we’ll be able to have the House pass my original proposal and have had time to carefully work out the details. And in 6 months there will be more Republicans and more conservatives in the Senate. And in 6 months, more of the Democrats will be getting nervous about what happens to them at election time if they don’t pass the new Republican proposal. Even if it does mean they need to vote to override the veto from the guy in The Big House.

  • larrye

    If Boehner and company start that crap in the next congress, I’m finished. That is what sunk W and his administration. We might just as well never had an election. What part of WE THE PEOPLE don’t they understand!? If I wanted bipartisanship, I would have voted for Charlie Crist instead of Marco Rubio. These RINO’s hjust plain disgust me. They created this mess, and they want to play some more. 2012 THEY ALL GO AGAIN, EVERYONE. I really think one term is enough period. I live in Citrus County, in central Florida. We are probably the most impoverished county in the country. Every time I hear one of these idiot talking heads tell me that there shouldn’t be another unemployment extension, just get off your dead butt and get a job, I get furious, because you can’t get job cleaning toilets here. These RICH TV idiots should try to live on minimum wage and shut up!

  • leonidus2010

    Am I out of my mind? I thought Ron Paul was a “FISCAL CONSERVATIVE”?
    Up until now I had a lot of respect for Ron Paul as one of the few Americans with principles. Although I may have had disagreements on some of his other positions. Although I recently read posts about him putting earmarks in bills then voting against them?? Earmarks should be outlawed and if not then at least the rules should be if you vote against the bill your “earmarks” and anything you lobbied to put in it for your sponsors (I mean your lobbysit friends) should be automatically out upon passage.

    Maybe I am misunderstanding something here? If so please correct me.

    Rep Ron Paul voted WITH Rep Dennis Kucinich the MOST liberal of all liberals?!?!

    Here?s a memo if Rep Kucinich is voting FOR something, anything, you probably want to vote AGAINST it, especially if that bill is supported by unions, the SEIU and opposed by the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Taxpayers Union.

    Only 36 Republicans in the House and only 5 Republican Senators voted against this (below)? I expected this out of RINO?s that love to join Dems in giving out candy to buy votes on ?bipartisan? bills. Granted a tax deduction is nice but I don?t think my kids should have to pay for it?

    This bill (as written) was opposed by the US Chamber of Commerce, Freedom Works and the National Taxpayers Union and this bill was ENDORSED by the SEIU and AFSCME (union) need I say more? Since when do Conservatives vote against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and with the SEIU and other unions?

    I just looked up the vote records and the CBO numbers to see what (if anything) this ?bipartisan? bill cost us and who voted for it. I thought all new legislation as supposed to be ?paid for? and we were not supposed to be increasing our national debt? Is that what they are telling us they will do? They classified it as an ?emergency? to get out of the ?pay as you go? rules? More legislative trickery and back room dealing?

    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4853/show

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00276

    Could they not have REQUIRED spending cuts to equal the reduction in revenues to not increase our debt? I thought after the RINO?s that voted with Bush and the Dems to increase spending and debt were either voted out and claimed to have ?reformed? when they admitted they ?got drunk?. Did they complete the 12 step program? Do we need to send them back to rehab or should we primary them again in 2012 with REAL Conservatives like DeMint, Sessions, Bachmann, Gohmert and Pence who voted against this AND the TARP Socialist Redistribution program? These appear to be the REAL leaders of the Conservative movement they lead by their actions NOT by their words. Maybe if Boehner and McConnell can?t get their stuff together in the next 11 months then Mike Pence as Speaker and Demint or Sessions as Majority Leader in 2012 sounds like a better plan.

    These Conservatives had the GUTS to vote against this bill (as written) on principle. And if we don?t have principles what do we have?

    Coburn (R-OK)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Ensign (R-NV)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Voinovich (R-OH)

    Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6]
    Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6]
    Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
    Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
    Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26]
    Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48]
    Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3]
    Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6]
    Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4]
    Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4]
    Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1]
    Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5]
    Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
    Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
    Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11]
    Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1]
    Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9]
    Peter Hoekstra
    Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4]
    Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5]
    Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1]
    Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]
    John Linder
    Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14]
    Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]
    Sen. Jerry Moran [R, KS]
    Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6]
    Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
    Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0]
    Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3]
    Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2]
    John Shadegg
    Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2]
    Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1]
    Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2]
    Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10]

  • victrola

    If Republicans give Obama a 2 year extension of the current tax cuts, they better get a Thank You letter from the Obama ’12 Re-election Campaign.

    Why on Earth would they throw a life-preserver to Obama and the Democrats? We have them completely boxed in.

    If Obama doesn’t agree to make these tax rates permanent, he’ll be dead-in-the-water if he lets these cuts expire as every American who pays taxes will see their rates increase. You will see a groundswell of support for conservative Republicans.

  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer the Bush tax cuts be made permanent. But our 2012 candidate can and should hold BOzo’s feet to the fire on an Obama Tax Hike. I know, I know, his word is almost worthless – just ask the offshore drilling folks – but rhetoric counts, and The Obama Tax Hike makes for stick-in-the-mind rhetoric.

  • jeffreywturner

    A one year extension of everything would be fine. Then the issue can be revisited toward the end of next year, right BEFORE the election, so Obama will not be let off the hook so easily. The new GOP House can pass a permanent extension of everything and leave the ball in the Dems’ court. Let them accept that or force them to raise taxes on all taxpayers in a Presidential election year.

  • zuckey6

    What is being proposed is keeping present rates instead of intead of allowing them togoup on January 1, 2011

  • skipper76

    I think this is an excellent idea except for one other point to consider. I believe Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the economy and bring about a total economic collapse. It is part of the radical play book. He is already well on the way and if the tax cuts expire I think in the next two years he may well succeed. Everything he is doing with the HSA and TSA looks like he is gearing up for marshal law and a total police state.

  • rickindenver

    The current reality is that the argument is over keeping the status quo or allowing the Obama tax hikes to take effect. I would hesitate to make current tax law permanent. This too is compromise! I for one think the current tax rates are to high! In the future I would like to see the starting point for future discussions of tax policy start with eliminating the current tax structure altogether and replace it with either the Fair tax , Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax or some other flat tax (links below). Add to this a few “compromise goodies” such as a year long suspension of all payroll taxes and reducing the corporate tax rate to zero for example.
    You may think I am dreaming however the left and their dream of utopia and the workers paradise, considered extreme by most here, is where they start the fight!

    www.fairtax.org

    http://apttax.com/index.htm

  • quasimofo

    “We won.”

  • speciallist

    and Jeffrey, that’s a brilliant idea….that’s the only compromise I would accept…

    and then again it all hinges on Repub’s keeping their promise

  • Jack_Savage

    As Cantor said, one of two things is going to happen in January. Either tax rates will stay the same, or they will go up. There are no cuts.

  • reaganauh2o

    Where do we compromise between food and poison? There is no common ground with the dems. The 1994 revolution was a backlash to Hillarycare and unrepentant liberalism unleashed with Clinton’s election in 1992. Third party Ross Perot gave us the slick one; convinced he had a mandate with less than 50% of the vote. It was Teddy Roosevelt’s third party lunacy (the ‘progressive’ republican) that gave us Woodrow Wilson. Gee, Teddy Roosevelt, Bush 41, and ‘W’…. republicans that spawned Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

    Ronald Reagan didn’t want to be a republican. He famously declared that he didn’t leave the dems, but they left him. He knew victory was only possible by having the only other letter on the ballot other than ‘D’. The more I see and read about Sarah, the more Reaganesque she is. She drives the libs completely batsh*t crazy (like Reagan), and when they mount personal attacks against her because their ideas are futile, she responds with a smile (like Reagan). Her principles are rock solid and unaffected by opinion polls (like Reagan) which is why she can respond with grace, humor, and dignity (like Reagan).

    But she kicks it up several notches by being smokin’ hot after five kids, and displaying Alaskan frontier culture to the girly men of the lower 48. I’m loving the reaction I’m seeing when she brains a halibut, and cleans salmon. If you put a halibut in a boat with Karl Rove he would curl up in the fetal position and soil himself. Wait until this Sunday when they see her look into her freezer and see she’s running low on moose and caribou, puts on camo and a headband, grabs a rifle, and heads up to ANWR to rectify the situation.

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    Ms. Palin is a prodigious fund raiser and a strong voice for conservatism, business and freedom. But she’s be to big a target for the left to aim at if she runs. Conservatives need a reasoned individual with principles… We can win. Palin cannot.

    http://www.periodictablet.com

  • The_Gadfly

    But in two short months Republicans will be in a position to substantively offer real proposals that will improve the economy. They will be able to offer either the current Make Them Permanent proposal, or even Make Them Permanent Plus(tm) in which they couple other free market ideas to revive the economy into the package. Faced with the prospect of being blamed for not passing them again, Dems will fold. Especially after people get their first paychecks next year.