Posted on 09/11/2011 1:17:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
With the opening of the fall political season and tonight's Republican candidate debate, expect influential conservative voices to clamor for fellow conservatives to set aside half-measures, eschew conciliation, and adhere to conservative principle in its pristine purity. But what does fidelity to conservatism's core convictions mean?
Superstar radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has, with characteristic bravado, championed a take-no-prisoners approach. In late July, as the debt-ceiling debate built to its climax, he understandably exhorted House Speaker John Boehner to stand strong and rightly praised the tea party for "putting country before party." But then Mr. Limbaugh went further. "Winners do not compromise," he declared on air. "Winners do not compromise with themselves. The winners who do compromise are winners who still don't believe in themselves as winners, who still think of themselves as losers."
We saw the results of such thinking in November 2010, when Christine O'Donnell was defeated by Chris Coons in Delaware in the race for Vice President Joe Biden's vacated Senate seat. In Nevada Sharron Angle was defeated by Harry Reid, who was returned to Washington to reclaim his position as Senate majority leader. In both cases, the Republican senatorial candidate was a tea party favorite who lost a very winnable election.
The notion of conservative purity is a myth. The great mission of American conservatism—securing the conditions under which liberty flourishes—has always depended on the weaving together of imperfectly compatible principles and applying them to an evolving and elusive political landscape.
William F. Buckley Jr.'s 1955 Mission Statement announcing the launch of National Review welcomed traditionalists, libertarians and anticommunists. His enterprise provides a model of a big-tent conservatism supported by multiple and competing principles: limited government, free markets, traditional morality and strong national defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Reagan never compromised his conservative principles. He fought for the best deal possible he could get. In the end, Reagan was highly successful and he secured that "75%-80%" goal he talked about.
Over the years Reagan also said:
“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”
~~~ Ronald Reagan, 1965
“Join me in a dream of a California whose government isn't characterized by political hacks and cronies and relatives--an administration that doesn't make its decisions based on political expediency but on moral truth. Together, let us find men to match our mountains.”
~~~ Ronald Reagan, 1966
“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
~~~ Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975
“Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs.
If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right — those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.”
~~~ Ronald Reagan: Speech at the 4th Annual CPAC Convention: A New Republican Party, February 6, 1977
Patriotic conservatives have been forced to “compromise” themselves FURTHER AND FURTHER TO THE LEFT - FOR YEARS!!
NO MORE!!
This will not please the "surrender-first" crowd, I am sure.
Those who chant "compromise" in their exhortations are part of the problem. Not the solution.
The age of compromise is over.
The efforts seem to be part of a larger strategy to silence those who disagree with the so-called "progressives'" agenda, as they try to make "compromise" a virtue. Is this part of a Soros-funded effort to neutralize opposition for the 2012 election? Watch AP "reports," columnists, and even letters to the editor in local newspapers which suddenly tout the great need for "compromise." Almost every newspaper has a sudden rush of them, complaining about the lack of "compromise."
Had the men and women of 1776 "compromised," we would have no Declaration of Independence and no freedom from British rule.
Citizens might remember that, unaccompanied by a strong determination to adhere to the Founders' ideas of liberty, then we risk damaging, rather than helping, the Republic. On questions essential to liberty, we may "compromise" away the liberty of our posterity and help to snuff out the light of liberty in the world.
In other words, if we keep doing the same things we've done already in the Congress and Senate, then we can expect the same results we've been getting--compromises that throw away the liberty of future generations.
On the other hand, if our nominees and representatives can articulate and explain the Founders' ideas as protections for liberty for all citizens, they will have planted the seeds of liberty in the hearts and minds of potential voters. Those seeds will bear fruit for the future, because once the ideas of liberty are understood, individuals may no longer voluntarily submit themselves to slavery to government. If, like the Founders, candidates and elected officials understood the ideas essential to liberty, they would sacrifice their "lives, liberty and sacred honor" rather than "compromise" on issues of limiting government, spending, taxation, etc.
Short-term gain, numbers wise, may lead to long-time loss.
Zacharias Montgomery: "If I have learned anything from the reading of history, it is that the man who, in violation of great principles, toils for temporary fame, purchases for himself either total oblivion or eternal infamy, while he who temporarily goes down battling for right principles always deserves, and generally secures, the gratitude of succeeding ages, and will carry with him the sustaining solace of a clean conscience, more precious than all the offices and honors in the gift of man."
Thomas Jefferson:
"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40
In his First Inaugural, Jefferson clearly outlined the "principles" that would guide his Administration, and added:
"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."
For too long, our public discourse has been based on "issues" and short-term political goals, with not enough emphasis placed on how this or that question on an issue relates to a principle essential to our very liberty as a nation. We must return to the "road" described by Jefferson as he took office if liberty is to survive the compromises and assaults by both major Parties over the past 100 years.
Compromise, maybe. Surrender, NO!
One trouble with today’s compromise, it’s the democrats way or the highway. Few if any democrats compromise with Republicans.Look what has happened from in 2006 when the democrats became the dominent party. Junk bonds were rampid, money from the feds turned into “funny money”, individuals incapable of putting down a downpayment, were “given” houses, and the list goes on, by the majority rulers. This is todays “compromise”. The Republicans, when in disagreement with some democrat money spending bill, are called names.
Yes-
I know for certain sure that it is a myth that anyone on FR is a purist. I also know for certain sure that many FReepers accuse those who reject their favorite candidates, of being purists.
But as for actual purists and people supposedly insisting on perfection in their candidates, both are myths.
Very real are people who level those accusations at those who reject their candidates.
Limbaugh, like me, wants candidates who will be true to limited government conservative principle even -- no, especially -- when they're being tempted to compromise them. Purity in politicians is an illusion, as any sensible person, including Limbaugh and I daresay author Berkowitz, knows full well.
The willingness to RESIST pressure to compromise conservative principle is a very real quality. Had straight-ticket Republican voters like myself insisted upon that quality over the past 30 years before pulling the lever in the voting booth, rather than loyally voting for the weak-willed, compromising R on the premise of "anybody but _______" (insert Democrat nightmare du jour name here), we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.
The "myth" of conservative purity is that anyone is demanding it -- the truth is that accusations of "you're a purist!" are the wailings of an establishment elite going down.
These stores ONLY come out when REPUBLICANS are in control. Where was there a compromise when Pelosi ran things, and Obama had a super majority in both houses. Then we heard Elections have Consequences, we WON you LOST (BIG TIME)
You have that right, Jim. Remember how the democrats held their one sided debates in sealed rooms, not allowing any Republicans inside? Remember nobama also attending these meetings with NO Republicans allowed. Many bills were passed without any Republican input. Remember pussy pelosi telling the elected, they’d find out what was in the health bill after it was passed? Yep, there is NO compromise when the democrats have the majority, and they’ve had it since 2006. A shame, but we’ll get it back soon, and hopefully the “old bulls” (rinos) will be replaced with conservative Republicans.
Compromise is acceptable with points of view that are relevant, pure and wholesome in motive, and grounded in fact. It is NOT acceptable to compromise with those whose position or methods are based on deceit, those who seek to oppose virtue and honor, or those whose principles have been disproven by repeated failure, culpability in calamity, or discovery of motives known to be sinister.
Why should we ever compromise with the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, etc, etc.?
RatRipper 2011
The problem here is that “compromise” to these people means moving left. We have done that enough!
It’s time the LEFT compromise by moving RIGHT!
(The Founding Fathers and Reagan Practiced the Art of Compromise)
That’s why we have a domineering, out of control Federal government and 30 million illegals invading our country.
Nicely said.
I agree, have said so, and gotten flamed.
However, compromise is problematic when you consider who we are trying to compromise with...
I agree, have said so, and gotten flamed.
However, compromise is problematic when you consider who we are trying to compromise with...
Where was the ‘compromise’ when obama was first elected and had a democrat House and Senate???
“..I won...”
“Sure, the Republicans can get on the bus... but they gotta get in the back!”
I’m sure many here could add to the list.
No. There is NO compromise with proud Marxists who want to ‘fundamentally CHANGE’ this wonderful country as it was founded.
Compromise is fine when there is nothing to be lost of value; the problem is we are far past the point where compromise leaves our side with anything. Any further compromises are in fact losses, with the end result being something along the lines of atheist Eurotrash socialism or worse...which is what the incremental program of the progressiviks wants and has been getting. New Deal to Great Society to Obamacare....Abolishing sodomy laws to gay marriage to legal child molestation.... The right has hit the point where obstruction and an absolute “no” are the only worthwhile response short of civil war or outright surrender.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.