Skip to comments.Conservatives Won't Win Elections by Refusing To Compromise
Posted on 05/28/2014 6:28:32 PM PDT by Kaslin
More discussion on the topic of pragmatism and politics is critical. If conservatives decide to take their marbles and go home rather than fight to the bitter end because they feel their principles have been compromised, they will needlessly subject future generations to untold misery.
Voting for someone who agrees with you 90 percent of the time is far superior to voting for someone who disagrees with you 100 percent of the time. This is exactly what will happen if people refuse to exercise their civic duty and boycott elections because they feel betrayed. Personally, I am not supportive of abortion at all, but I can support people who feel differently if, in the gigantic scheme of things, they can help put an end to the murder of innocent babies. This is especially true of those who are personally inclined to save and protect life.
Perhaps an illustration is in order: Two armies are engaged in a war. Let's call the good army that is trying to defend an entire society the red army and the bad army that is trying to invade and pillage society the blue army. The blue army occupies a superior strategic position and is composed of slightly more troops, putting the red army at a distinct disadvantage. Some in the red army feel that they are right and, therefore, should simply march directly into battle with the blue army because right always wins.
Fortunately, some members of the red army are wise and have a better plan. They send a battalion of troops to the base of the mountain occupied by the blue army to distract them while the vast majority of red troops approach the mountain from the backside. They descend upon the blue army by surprise, completely vanquishing them and winning the war. The decoy red battalion may have sustained some casualties, but in the long run, the war was won, and the entire society was saved.
I hope this illustration is useful in helping some to understand that achieving a critical mass of conservatives and RINOs (Republicans in Name Only, as some call them) in office will ensure that we can get non-activist Supreme Court and federal judges in place who respect the U.S. Constitution. It is essential to achieve a critical mass of individuals in the U.S. House and Senate who can join with a president in upholding the Constitution. These representatives must believe in personal responsibility and creating a business-friendly environment, understand the balance between abundant fossil-fuel development and environmental safety, and yearn to elevate the government-dependent 47 percent rather than make them more dependent. They also must be totally pro-life and believe that the rule of law can undo a host of damaging regulations and restore the value system that made this nation great.
In the long run, with the help of God, we will be in a position to save millions of babies who otherwise would be slaughtered. With this kind of responsible empowerment, energizing a sluggish economy, bringing stability to a leaderless planet and facilitating innovation will not be that difficult. To sit helplessly by and pray for deliverance when the tools to achieve victory are in our hands is not useful. God helps those who help themselves.
Conservatives and those who share their values are the last bastion between freedom and tyranny. If the secular liberals, who are very clever, succeed in dividing us during the next two national elections, America as we know it will be gone. We can stop this, but we must work together. I disagree with those who think it is going to take decades to undo the damage that already has been done. Americans are exceptional and extremely resilient. We cannot allow ourselves to be defined by those who wish to fundamentally change our society.
I am convinced that Americans with common sense will soon regain power. It is essential that we not use the opportunity to exact revenge upon the liberals. Rather, we must govern by the Constitution in a way that is fair for all. It is not reasonable to have favorites and to enforce laws selectively. Most importantly, it is not the place of our government to rule the people; the government must always remember that it is in place to serve the people.
I believe that when people who were being manipulated by the secular liberals, including the media, have an opportunity to see how much better off they are when the proper relationship between the people and the government is restored, they will adopt a different attitude. This will empower them and the entire nation.
Now is the time to rise above partisan politics and recognize the incredible blessings God has bestowed upon our nation. It is time to elevate common sense, decency, honesty and compassion to their proper positions. Rather than simply repeating the words, we must actually achieve "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Conservatives won’t win elections by refusing to fight for what’s right.
Should rephrase that as: “Liberals won’t win elections unless....etc”
Do dumbocrats compromise?....Frick no they don’t.
Democrat compromise: We’ll do it exactly our way but we’ll delay it for 6 months.
Republican compromise: Well fight you for 6 months then give up and do it your way.
Compromising from a POSITION OF STRENGTH makes sense. We build the fence, get rid of welfare, education, and health care for Illegals - but maybe save deportations until a later day.
That is how you work from a position of strength. You don’t give the president the ONLY THING he wants, which is AMNESTY, and then hopes he does the things you want, because he won’t, and it wouldn’t even help much if he did, given all the new Democrats that would soon be voting.
We’ll compromise, when it advances our cause - and that’s about it.
Nobody has ever said never to compromise. It’s a typical Washington straw man. What we advocate is not to sellout to the other side. That’s not compromise. It’s surrender.
If conservatives “compromise” on immigration “reform,” conservatives will never have to “compromise” on anything else ever again.
Depends on the compromise and some issues are quite simply off limits.
Compromise with the left is like agreeing to only half a turd in the punch bowl.
Conservatives tend to win elections. They also tend to be pragmatic enough to know when to compromise when they govern. RINOs just surrender. Knowing when to compromise isn’t a conservative problem.
And the moral of the story is . . .
RINOs make good sacrificial lambs. They won’t fight and they stay out in the open. Use them to distract the Libs, and then go in for the kill. . .
I respect Dr. Carson. He’s a good man but this is not the person who should be anywhere near running for elected office. He sounds like another in the long line of “let’s get along to get along” kind of people and that’s not getting us anywhere. We need to flush the entire political process of liberals and RINOS. Dr. Carson, please do not give up being the skilled surgeon you are to run for political office. You will be slimed and destroyed by all sides and frankly you’re way too good a human being to deserve that.
Carson is a brilliant man, but reading this makes it seem as if he only started paying attention to politics since the last election. He doesn’t appear to understand the conservative rage that’s been building for years.
Decades and decades of compromise and grand bargains have brought
this country to the brink.
All I have to say is : BULL sh#T
I need to look at the individual candidate to know what I can accept from him.
There are candidates who aren’t totally in line but that we respect and can grudgingly support, or accept as the best we can do to advance the cause when they are the nominee, but there are also those who disagree on some key issues that we sense are much worse than just their stated positions, people with a hidden agenda, people who are really against us, when I see one of those I won’t vote for him.
conservatives won’t win elections if they keep caving in to the left on core beliefs.
the only way we reverse liberalism is by having them cave in our direction.
enough giving ground.
you want to do this, we did already. it’s called mccain.
Fight till your last breath. Fight LIBs/DIMs until they no longer have any power or authority. LIBs/DIMs are only good for ridicule.
The problem I have with the narrative on “compromise” is that the people who call for compromise always want to compromise on the core principles that make conservatives conservative.
It is tiresome to be lectured ad nauseum that the tenets I build my life around are to be thrown to the winds if someone else thinks they are inconvenient.
There’s no way I’d agree with most RINOs ‘90% of the time’. And his analogy about red and blue armies is incredibly lame, particularly for a ‘brilliant’ guy. Scratch another guy off the list.
I think this is the reason we ended up with 4 more years of Obama.
Here is the post:
Here is a portion of a post which I published in response to a Politico article calling for Republicans and conservatives to move left to fill the big tent:
As we conservatives drag the remnants of our movement into the wilderness with no idea how we will emerge or whether we will ever emerge as an electoral force in America which is recognizable by my generation, we must inevitably engage ourselves in the most soul- searing inquiry of what went wrong. This will be an agony but equally it will be effective only to the degree that it hurts. It will not succeed without bloodshed. There must be finger-pointing and bloodletting. We must carve to the bone. The process must be Darwinian. Those whose ideas are false must be bayoneted on the trail.
The object is to find our soul - nothing less. In a come to Jesus sense we must get absolutely clear what it means to be a conservative. Only at this point do we look to the tent flaps and open them. Those who cannot subscribe to the hard-won consensus, to a confession of faith as to what is a conservative, should walk out through that flap. Those who are attracted from the outside to the core message of conservatism should be encouraged to walk through the flap and enlarge the tent. What the left wants us to do is to expand the census in the tent prematurely and thus turn a movement into a menagerie. The Soul-searching must be conducted by conservatives without the earnest ministrations from liberals like those of Politico. This article, of course, has nothing whatever to do with explaining why Republicans lost 2008 election across the board, it has everything to do with first efforts by the left to sabotage the rebuilding process on the right which must be done exclusively by the right.
We have not lost the 2008 election because we were excessively partisan while Obama was enlightened and transcendental. We actually lost the election because George Bush and Karl Rove betrayed the soul of conservatism. A party without its soul is like an army which does not believe in itself, it cannot win the next contest. A party which had abandoned its principles and so lost the last two elections and frittered away both its power as the ruling coalition and its status as the majority philosophy of the nation, cannot expect to swell its ranks by recruiting to a lost cause. The party must first know what the cause is and only then can it recruit. To again borrow the military analogy, a party like an army disintegrates without a mission. Armies are assigned missions but a political party finds its mission only through soul-searching.
As this process occurs we will be told by the left that only a big tent party can win and that to become a big tent one must move to co-opt the center. That is not how it works. That is the reverse of the way it works. The center is not peopled by voters with fixed notions about the exercise of power who wait for one of the great political parties to surrender their values and embrace the tempered and resolute opinions of the middle. That happens with splinter parties but not with the mushy middle. When an unaffiliated voter bestirs himself to enter the polling booth he is confronted with one of two options: right or left. He does not consider who has moved the farthest geographically from right to the left or left to right any more than he commits because of his own long held political beliefs. He votes for the fella who best tickles his fancy at the moment. Put more charitably, he votes for the candidate who persuades that he is the best, and has the best to offer.
If we as conservatives do not believe that we have the best to offer we should get out of the business. A candidate, like a party, who is centered on his philosophy has integrity and is persuasive. And that philosophy must first have a vertical spiritual component which finds expression and out working in a horizontal governing philosophy.
Because of his race, Obama was asked only to demonstrate that he could walk and talk like a president. Obama has won the middle, not because he pandered to them, which he did, but because he had the wind at his back.
As John McCain reverts from titular head of the Republican Party to United States Senator, it falls to the rest of us to contrive a governing philosophy which he, unfortunately, did not own and therefore could not bequeath to us. We had such a legacy from Ronald Reagan but we squandered it. We must construct our own. We must do it in the wilderness. We must do it unaided by intermeddling liberals. Their's is the serpent's way, the easy way, a pander to the superficially popular, the accommodation to the middle. The bed of birth has always been a bed of pain. The pain must be embraced if we are to receive a new life.
there are 2 issues here, and Dr. Carson does not identify them individually:
1. Compromising with the left
2. compromising with the GOP-e
his case would be better made by elucidating these differences, and may lead him to a different analysis and conclusion
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Voting for someone who agrees with you 90 percent of the time is far superior to voting for someone who disagrees with you 100 percent of the time.
Conservatives have been voting, speaking and fighting on for decades now. So, trotting out that old, stupid line about how we conservatives have to compromise (as we have done many times before) or we will solely be the blame for the increasing wretchedness.
Let the other guy compromise.
The problem is the Ruling Class Republicans can't reach 50% much less 90%.
True enough. Politics is about persuasion, not compromise.
We’re doomed. Doctor Ben Carson has been paying attention to America. He may not be a fine tuned politician.... but we don’t need another lying political arsehole running the country. We don’t want another “politician” running this country. We don’t need another “politician” running this country. We need an American running this country. NO LAWYERS! NO MUSLIMS! NO KENYANS! NO RINOs’!!!!!!! Choose wisely, and at your own (and OUR) peril.
Dr. Carson is correct.
There is plenty of room for compromise, once the first things, the principles upon which we stand, are met.
Principles, by their very nature, cannot be compromised.
Every single time I vote, I compromise my principles and that is the way it should be. Unless Jesus Christ returns and runs for office, every person I vote for will be flawed and “a lesser of two evils”. It just makes sense to vote for the most viable candidate on the conservative end of the spectrum and hope enough people join in to start pushing this country back to the right.
The only point I disagreed with Dr. Carson on is whether or not it is too late for our country... I am afraid we might be passing a point of no return :-(
Conservatives will not compromise the Constitution of the United States.
Conservatives will not render that not in the Constitution to that of the federal government.
Conservatives will not step and fetch to the likes of Hairy Reed.
Unfortunately, the GOP hasn't been able to find a candidate like that recently.
I still have your post from a previous thread stating that you “detest all Republicans” so I don’t think this article pertains to you.
I simply don’t trust this argument anymore, and I’m dismayed that Dr Carson is using it. He should have been astute enough to recognize that this kind of appeal leaves a very bad taste in the mouth of conservatives.
This is the approach that has been used to wind up at full scale sell out.
So, don’t talk to me about “the principle of compromise”.
Tell me the exact compromise you have in mind, and I’ll tell you if I go along with it. If your article mentioning abortion is an indication of where you think compromise should take place, then forget it.
And politician who doesn’t understand that you can’t run around indiscriminately killing people is not worthy of office no matter ANYTHING else he says. If he’s in favor of killing, he go back on anything.
And as long as your party has its much beloved open primaries, it does pertain to me. I can and sometimes do vote for republicans.
I will NOT vote for a “lesser of evils” establishment RINO again.
Dr. Ben Carson, you are confused.
Winning elections is not what this is all about. If we wanted to win elections then we all could just join the democrats, boost their numbers, and then we would win elections. Or we could all be RINOs move to the left and compromise all our principles.
But this is about principles.
Sometimes, it is important to take a stand on principle. On principle we may need to fight. On principle we could lose our life. On principle we could lose an election. It is for us to do our duty, then let God determine how He will use us. Win or Lose. Let Him use our principled duty to Him.
We would not be in this mess if on principle we did not compromise. Compromise is what got us where we are. Therefore, we will not compromise with you. If you are not a principled conservative Christian and a principled conservative Constitutionalist, then we don’t want you.
Patrick Henry said on principle, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” He did not compromise. He was given liberty.
Dr Carson, I have a newsflash for you. The Tea Party candidates who are winning left and right are NOT running on an agenda of “compromise”.
Not trying to rile you up but you obviously aren't in the fight to win back the Senate and keep the House. That's the fight we have to win.
The House hasn't used it's power to reduce government spending one cent, and they can without the Senate or the President.
There's no "feel" about it. Conservative HAVE BEEN betrayed, for YEARS, by the very party that expects them to once again to supply their votes.
Reagan may have had clarity in his political philosophy and achieved most of his goals, but he didn’t achieve them without a great deal of compromise along the way. One has to know when and how to compromise, what can be compromised on and what can’t. But we can’t 30 years later forget about the fairly extensive Reagan compromises done to achieve his ends. I think that’s what Dr. Carson is alluding to in his commentary.