Reagan was also very frustrated at times with these “Fall on their sword” mean spirited, “All or none” types who called themselves true conservatives.
Conservatism without a reasonable level of pragmatic and personable relations, is a false philosophical premise.
Ronald Wilson Reagan was the Apex of Conservatism, and he was most well known for being pragmatic as well as a champion of logical Conservative wisdom.
Feel good?
I have never seen a single democrat compromise when they are in charge, or during a divided senate/house.
To them “compromise” consists of making an insane demand. We refuse. They cry until we agree to give them HALF of their demand. (the other half coming next session)
In a true compromise, each side gets something they want, and gives up something they want.
When they pass a new gun law, do they open up BLM and Forest areas they have closed for shooting? When they demand the close of ANWR, do they agree to support the oil sands pipeline, or allow more nuclear?
When they want mandatory healthcare, do they agree that illegal aliens should lose all government benefits?
When they want gay marriage, in exchange do they then agree to allow prayer and invocations at school events again?
No, none of these things happen because the left does not want “compromise”.
Compromise is not a one sided incremental movement towards the position of one side. The old game is over. (big middle finger)
Either way, the way that the Tea Party backed candidates campaign is no different than how Reagan campaigned in 1980. Even though Reagan compromised as president, he didn’t campaign on that.
Rush Limbaugh’s often-made point is that congressional Republicans always compromise with Democrats but Democrats never compromise with Republicans. When the Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate, they need not compromise with Democrats. Lest we forget that the Democrats, while in power in both houses, rammed through ‘ObamaCare’ and basically shut the Republicans out of the process because they had the voting majority and had no need to crompromise with the Republicans, so they didn’t. When in that kind of position of power, Rush is urging the Republicans not to throw away their voting majority advantage by caving in to Democrat attempts to thwart conservative bills by adding ‘compromises’ that benefit only Democrats. What is the point of working so hard to win elections if we throw away our advantage by compromising with a party that is diametrically opposed to conservative principles?
I don’t think we (the Tea Party) are unrealistic in our aims. We are attempting to transform a broken system. Compromising in ways that allow that system to continue limping along doesn’t help.
There are two simultaneous goals here. One is to directly affect policy TODAY. THIS is why we will not be happy with variants of “That’s the best we could get for you...”.
The second goal, at least as important, is to bump the Overton Window of what is politically acceptable. Gov. Perry referring to SS as a ‘broken ponzi scheme’ is an example of that. (I’m not a Perry fan. Nevertheless, he does SAY all the right things.) This is where the Tea Party truly SHINES.
By moving the goalposts of what is acceptable politically (in ways that allow conservative thought that was once considered out of the mainstream to now be considered and debated, AND also by moving moderate RINO thought that was once considered mainstream to now be considered dangerous politically), we are influencing policy TOMORROW.
Elections have consequences and the time has come for those consequences to positively affect those that hold a conservative line.
Before we can compromise on a new way forward, we need to bring business as usual to a screeching halt. Until the Republican Party is no longer the Party driving us to socialism at 97mph (instead of 100), being a wrench in the works is not a bad goal.
The thing is, in my lifetime, and to my knowledge, all compromise has been in a leftward direction. Let’s see some compromise in a rightward direction.
That is, instead of the Left getting something more, they give up some of their precious “gains”.
“Progress” and “compromise” is a one-way racket, er, I mean ratchet.
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.
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)
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!
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...