« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Again, No Compromise.

Late last year, I posted a memo of sorts to anyone who might have listened. At the time, the issue at stake was the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts. As I thought back on that post, I saw editors from the NY Times offering their insights on Obama offering the “truth” while Boehner “did not.”  I saw the buildup in the mainstream media as the left, hiding behind their bogus claims of objectivity, used words like “reason” to describe Obama, and “attack” to describe Boehner’s reaction.  It is clear that we are at a cross-roads of sorts again, and unfortunately, it is not clear that our own Republican Party is aware of what is expected of them. More than ever, the need to stand firm and reject an inch of movement is what is called for.

I considered writing a new memo espousing the same reasons as before as to why compromise is not always the answer and in fact, is being used as a tool by the progressives to slowly encroach on our lives by chipping away at our liberty, bit by bit.

In the end, I decided I did well enough before and that it bears repeating.

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.

Take note GOP leadership: This is not time to think about the political ramifications.  This is not the time to balance against what others might say about you in a campaign speech or television commercial.  In short, this is not the time to think about yourselves.

This is the time where you show us why we haven’t given up on you.  The time where you force the Obama administration to own the crisis that they have made.  Any claims to an inheritance of this problem have completely lost credibility.  It’s time for the rude awakening that the left is trying to delay, to finally and at long last happen.

It is time for you to do the right thing.  It is time for you to stand up for us.

Stand your ground.

Hold the line.

No compromise.

COMMENTS

  • smbn

    Then you have to compromise at some point; it’s literally the framework of our government.

    The two examples you gave of not compromising were both wars, actual bloody wars. That’s when you don’t compromise.
    Until then, if you believe in rule of law, you have to compromise to make things better.

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

      .

    • Ben Howe

      That you have decided that war is the only time “no compromise” is allowed.

      You dont suppose that if at any moment in the series of events that led up to war, uncompromising leaders who stood by their principles might have prevented that war?

      And need I further remind you that the “bloody war” of the American Revolutiom was sparked because the colonists wouldn’t compromise on taxation without representation?

      By your rule, the Revolution should never even have happened. By your rule, all wars are avoided simply by constantly giving in to the demands of the opposition.

      I’m usually one of the more patient contributors here. But you sir, are a fool.

      • smbn

        That’s my whole point.
        If you want to work within the framework of the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, for the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, then you have to compromise at some point. Not on everything, not always, but sometimes, on some things.

        • Ben Howe

          “then you have to compromise at some point. Not on everything, not always, but sometimes, on some things.”

          Then you agree that not everything is up for debate? Not everything is available for compromise?

          Then you agree with my article.

          You just don’t agree that it should be no compromise on THIS issue.

          • smbn

            I just think never compromising is the road to irrelevancy

          • Ben Howe

            But I didn’t call for “never compromising”

            I called for an end to mindless compromising.

        • quill67

          If only we did work within the framework of the US Constitution, compromise would not be so difficult.

          If we lived by the Constitution there would be no Medicare debt crisis. Our choices would be rather simple: basically National Defense, Roads, and laws between the states (simplifying the 17 enumerated powers) Those issues are much simplier. One may want a new road or believe that more money should be spent on defense, but they will not ignite people’s passions as much as say national defense and reducing grandpa’s Medicare.

          The founding fathers had a wonderful idea. Keep government simple. Focused on preserving “domestic tranquility” and national defense. These are areas where compromise is much easier. Other areas of government were to be left to the states where people were more likely to agree on particular needs from government.

          • BlueLandRed

            “Focused on preserving ?domestic tranquility? and national defense.”

            I believe the next phrase is “promote the general Welfare”.

            Regardless, can you explain to me how corporations became “people” under the constitution? I keep looking and I just don’t see the word corporation… so I’m not sure how this “simple” government decided that made up people are equal to real people.

          • charlesmartel

            Very little of what the federal government currently does would fall under the mantle of “promoting the general welfare,” in that many government programs target specific minorities (in the statistical, not ethnic sense) and special interest groups, redistributing wealth from those who earned it to those who didn’t based on nothing more than cronyism and “social justice.” Such programs, I would argue, actually damage the “general welfare” while enriching favored groups at the expense of everyone else.

            Nice non sequitur, btw, with the whole “corporations as people” rant. Not sure where that came from.

          • lineholder

            I read an article from a leftist websites ranting about how right-wing extremists favor corporations over real people….you know, all the real, poor people that the left is supposedly trying to protect and provide for.

            Sad, but the left keeps on taking money for redistribution and the poor just get poorer by the days, but folks still buy into this jargon. Doesn’t seem to occur to them to ask, “where’s all the money going?”

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            General Welfare and Individual Welfare are two distinct entities. It attrits the general welfare every time the Federal Government takes from the commonweal and bestows it upon an individual, it is yet another example of the general welfare being harmed to hand out panem at circenses.

            Therefore, if we interpreted The General Welfare Clause as literally as you seek to so do, Social Security, Medipander, EBT Cards, and ObamaCare’s Public Option would all be grave offenses against the general welfare and therefore profane and offensive to any decently run Democratic Republic. Three Cheers for The Genral Welfare Clause! it doesn’t equal Santa Claus!

          • pegasus

            repair man. None of these programs are “technically” legal under the constitution. In the case of Social Security though, the government took monies that I earned without asking me if I wanted them to (supposedly placed in some form of “trust fund” for me). They (the government) have used my money (and everyone else who was ripped off due to this program) on things without mine or anyone elses permission, to the point that now they say the money isn’t there. There is no legal standing for them to be allowed to do this, therefor, they have stolen mine and everyone elses property, and given it to thye leeches that live off those of us that have worked our butts off for the “American Dream”. The only ones living this dream are the leeches and the politicians.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            I lose my suave and debonair air of sophistication over this. The use of THe General Welfare Clause as an excuse to steal from decent people and buy the votes of bums is revolting.

  • Adjoran

    anything of the sort, there was no “bipartisan” component at all and certainly no compromise needed to enact the bad ideas.

    For example, the New Deal was enacted over Republican objections but in a hopeless minority. Same for the Great Society and Medicare. The Munich Pact had no support from the Conservatives and Churchill, who criticized Chamberlin for even making the trip.

    One compromise that has always been bipartisan and always been wrong is when Republicans trust Democrats to make or help make spending cuts at some future date. It doesn’t matter if the date is tomorrow and they have sworn on their mothers’ graves to enact the cuts, once the Democrats have what they want, their promises are worth less than losing lottery tickets.

    Unfortunately, it seems we may be about to fall for the same trick again. A tragedy for our country, because the higher interest will drive us into default quickly anyway once our bonds are downgraded, and for the GOP, who had enthusiasm and momentum going into 2012 and seem ready to give it up just to make a deal with the devils.

  • snowshooze

    And I have nothing I feel like giving for it…
    Great line. True.

  • keven

    Supposedly, this bill has an “”"Outlay reduction for FY 12 ? $25 billion cut in discretionary spending”"”

    A 25 billion cut in discretionary spending??? They realize that discretionary spending has gone up over 20% the last two years alone. From 2008-2010 discretionary spending went from 1.114 trillion to 1.378 trillion. An increase of 264 billion in just those two years. If we cut 25 billion from that increase, then we still will have added 239 billion a year in discretionary spending alone since 2008. We need to go BACK to 2008 spending immediatly, not 10% back to that spending level. These cuts are not serious. Instead of increasing discretionary spending 23.7% since 2008, it would be an increase of 21.5% since 2008. That is not even a step in the right direction.

    Something must be accomplished in this budget battle. Cuts are not one of those accomplishments. Personally, I see nothing. 25 billion is chump change.

  • BlueLandRed

    we can’t compromise bit?

    The United States only exists because of compromise. Seriously… if you were a founding father and you choice of no Constitution or accepting slavery and that 3/5 clause, which would you choose?

    • bigredone

      Was pushed by Northerners who did not want the slave population counted as a whole in the census thereby giving the South more Representatives in the House.

      It was the Northerners who believed the slaves were only 3/5 of a human. Revisionist history! Bah!

      • cowboyman

        Without the 3/5ths clause the Civil War may have never happened, or at least it would have taken several more years (decades) to break out. Counting slaves as only 3/5ths of a represented entity kept the South from dominating the House of Representatives. Therefor, the clause, severely diminished the slaves-states power and allowed Lincoln, once elected, along with the Northern states, to force the issue.

        When forced, the South seceded, and alas – the Civil War. There was a reason behind the 3/5th clause, and it benefited the slave population immensely, although there were obviously tremendous hardships suffferd even after the war. We should all refrain from bumper sticker history and read a book once in a while. Books by Frederick Douglass would be a good place to start on this issue.

    • Christine (Trelaina)

      When compromise means both parties actually GET something, or the overall result is better than things were before, compromise makes sense.

      Today, the word “compromise” has been hijacked. It means “do what the liberals want but make sure it looks like we helped”. It is an attack…if you don’t do what we want, I’ll go out to the people and say you are partisan, uncaring, etc.

      It’s the way dems and libs force the rest of us to get the next little slice of the new world order into our lives. They’ve been forcing “compromise” for 40+ years, and look where that got us.

      We need to start undoing the damage that has been done, and that means stopping the compromises that have slowly brought us to the cliff’s edge.

      • Doc Holliday

        I guess the Redskins and Cowboys should compromise and decide each team gets to win 50 percent of the time. Sure, that would mean the Cowboys would have to give up more, but hey, its compromise time!

    • charlesmartel

      Ben doesn’t say we can’t compromise – he says we shouldn’t compromise on THIS.

      Interesting, however, that you’re effectively relating this whole debt/spending debacle with slavery. Pretty sure that wasn’t your intent, but accurate nonetheless.

  • toothpick

    Why is it that “compromise” is always between bad and awful? It’s always “how quickly should we grow the government?” Or, “how many new regulations should we impose on businesses and consumers this time around?” As you say, if the choice is between one mode of death and another, why compromise at all?

    Not to mention – in this case we are being asked to compromise between a specific set of policy choices, set in plain legislative language, publicly debated and PASSED by one house of congress (the Ryan plan plus CCB) vs. an undefined streaming pile of bloviation, trial balloons, and high-minded holier-than-thou good intentions. What the h*ll kind of compromise is that?

    Hold the freaking line. And For god’s sake, stop letting the other side make you negotiate with yourself.

  • morninginamerica

    As msot of us know, we have to straighten things out in a legislative body, which means collecting enough votes to get “it” done. That means finding ways to reform this mess one step at a time and build on it, like Reagan. When he came in the top tax rate was 70%; when he left it was 28%.

    We may have to compromise on the size of the steps, but never our principles. We know where we’re going, even if the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten the Constitution, Patience is vital. It took a long time to get here, and we don’t want to put everything on one inning the Media can fix. The people will come along as they see a better real future.

    Just look at what Boehner has accomplished, whether it was all his idea or not. As Pat Buchannan said the Repbulicans should pass their legislation and wait. That plan even snared Harry Reid!

  • jqcitizen

    Fiscal and social conservatives have been compromising with so-called progressives on principle for at least the the last 100 years.
    A little at first, and constantly since. As a result we have an American society and demonstrated governmental fiscal irresponsibility that the founders of this country could never have envisioned. Additionally, we have created an entitlement society and totally managed to either circumvent or ignore the basic constitutional principles which provided the individual rights and freedoms that Americans cherish.

    We must require that our leaders begin the process of restoring what we have lost by compromising on basic principles for far too long. It may require smaller steps at first. At least until, we replace those in congress, the executive branch, and judiciary with those who recognize our rights and freedoms under the Constitution.

    We have no place in this country for leadership that plays groups of citizens against each other through the use of lies and half truths. This to mold our society and country to their benefit or their vision of what our Country should be. Our founders provided the foundation we needed in the Constitution and Bill-of-Rights and ensured that changes could be made to meet changing conditions if a super majority agreed that said changes consistent with constitutional principles were required.

    We need to begin the process of re-acquiring our rights and freedoms. And with our Creators help and grace we can do this.

  • Wayne

    Compromise is truly a failure of leadership. The Republicans use that term toward Obama without turning the light on themselves. It’s times like these that drove me from the Republican Party and the only reason I returned was in hopes of wrenching control of the party back toward it’s Constitutional Conservative (CC) roots.

    We have a ways to go, but this is the good fight and we have to fight it from within. Don’t lose hope, there are plenty of us CCs elbowing our way to the front of the line. Change takes time and change is happening, but unfortunately, not fast enough. We look to 2012 now.

  • cowboyman

    Boehner’s plan, even if passed, will do nothing to stop the downgrading of our debt. There are not nearly enough cuts in spending to make a difference. Reid’s plan is only a smoke screen, designed to get support for Boehner’s plan. This strategy makes Boehner the fall guy, if his bill is signed (grudgingly, as acted out by Obama) into law, when the downgrade happens, Obama will rail that he was forced to sign the bill (blaming Republicans and the Tea Party), and now look what happened.

    Boehne should have went fishing after CC&B passed the House. His unforced error, of maneuvering himself into the fall-guy position, is very strange to me. I’ve seen better brinkmanship from first year federal employee union negotiators. Boehner’s cards are on the table, with nothing showing from Obama. Who do you think wins here? I hope the Tea Party people in the House and Senate can stop both Obama and Boehner, and force Reid to take CC&B off the table for a vote.