The Myth of Conservative Purity (The Founding Fathers and Reagan Practiced the Art of Compromise)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 09/08/2011 | PETER BERKOWITZ

[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.

[ForGod'sSake]

I wonder if Rush even realizes how the art of negotiation/compromise actually works? Probably so but if he does, maybe he just doesn't articulate it fully. And the obvious question, why compromise/negotiate if and when you don't have to?

In any case, the textbook art of compromise/negotiation is to always, ALWAYS, demand more than you realistically think you will end up getting. The Dims have made their living this way. The Pubbies, not so much. Seems to me Pubbies, being the more "rational" of the two groups begin their demands at roughly where they would like to end up. They end up trading away some or much of what they actually hold dear. Not a good plan IMHO.

IMHO, Pubbies should be DEMANDING feral government spending be slashed to half its current level immediately. Demanding closure of ALL non-essential cabinet level departments and alphabet agencies; then settle for about half. Reform entitlements? Get rid of or significantly curtail these bloated and unconstitutional monstrosities. As a compromise, we might keep some form of SS but it will have to be placed under new management. No dipping in the till by the greedy bastards in DC!

[ForGod'sSake]

Oh, and I meant to add: There are major flies in the buttermilk right now. And while Pubbies are not really in a position to have their way with the Dim Socialists, ANY compromise with the libtards at this point could likely send the republic over the edge. I personally believe that but I haven’t heard it much from our leaders in DC. It could be that the message is not getting out?

[roamer_1]

There is always room for compromise, AFTER the 1st things, principles, have been satisfied. That is where the line must be, else principles are not principles. Anyone who cannot protect and live by the basic immovable principles of the various conservative factions, should not have the support of any of them.

[DManA]

Here’s the key distinction - if the “compromise” takes you even farther in the wrong direction, just slower, that is NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE. We just can’t afford to do that anymore. If you believe spending has to be cut, you are not compromising if the budget goes up. You are giving in.

The compromises have to start taking things into the direction we want to go, just slower than we’d prefer.

[DManA]

If group A wants to cut the budget, and group B wants to increase it, a compromise would be a budget freeze.

But that is considered radical in elite circles today. Nothing exposes the duplicity of the Republican leadership than this state of affairs.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

It’s all about winning and losing to these idiots - what’s best for the country is not a consideration.

[rogue yam]

There is a big difference between compromising with our opponents and negotiating with ourselves.

Compromise is what we do once we’ve nominated the most conservative candidates possible, won back the White House and many Congressional seats, and then are debating pending legislation as necessary with whatever is left of the ‘Rat party.

We do not compromise 14 months prior to election day when we haven’t even chosen our candidates yet.

[Iron Munro]

Compromise has brought the country to the brink of financial collapse.

You cannot compromise well founded principles and expect good to come out of it.

How do you compromise on a law that bans adults from having sex with children?
Do you say “Okay, but only on Wednesday afternoons and only if the child has been weaned.”?

How do you legallly and morally compromise on an absolute principle such as the 2nd ammendment?
Do you accept Obama’s idea that the constitution is just an out of date “rigid idea of what government can and can not do”?