The dark side of compromise
January 20, 2013 at 10:27 am in News by Dustin Siggins 8 Comments
On Thursday, Pew Research published the results of a new poll outlining how Americans view Washington. Much of the poll focuses on the relative positives and negatives of the nation’s leaders, especially President Obama’s personal and professional popularity. However, one section focused on how the American people view Washington’s ability to do its job.
From the poll results, two important charts:
Given the split control of Washington and the constant media push for “compromise” for its own sake, it is only natural most of the American people want more compromise. However, I propose there are two errors in this thinking.
First, there has already been plenty of compromise in the last two years. Republicans have repeatedly compromised on spending cuts and tax increases. Some Democrats have compromised in their own way, raising taxes less than they want to and reducing spending slightly. Unfortunately, these compromises have done almost nothing to circumvent the coming fiscal collapse in America.
The other problem with thinking we need more compromise is that it is used in error in politics. As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) explained to me last year in an interview:
This is what the “grand bargain” idea was all about. Democrats think working with us on Social Security will bring a compromise. They think we want changes to Social Security and we will agree to bring taxes up. This is wrong-headed. We are not jumping up and down to reform entitlements; we want to fix them because they are broken. The Deficit Commission wanted a “grand bargain,” but the whole concept misses the point.
Senator Paul is exactly right. “Compromise” takes place when one negotiator gets part of what he or she wants and the other side gets part of what they want. However, the Washington inclination to call entitlement reform “compromise” and spending cuts “compromise” ignores the simple truth that spending is the problem, and anything that does not directly address this problem makes things worse.
The American public has been misled by Washington and its mainstream media allies. This means those of us in the Tea Party must continue to explain the real facts about the debt to the public over the next few months, as the budget debates reach a short-term climax. The future of our nation depends on it.
My thoughts exactly. Compromising to simply compromise will not solve our problems. We must avoid Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity. That is “doing the same thing over and over (i.e. spending more with no balanced budget or real spending reductions) and expecting a different result.” Is a failure in the leadership in Washington and is a sign of the corruption and disfunction by our branches and representatives in government.
Compromise is not the goal, doing right is the goal. If one person wants to steal and kill another and his counterpart says, no treat him well, compromise would be to just steal from him. Compromise is wrong when the stakes are critical (its fine for who’s going to take the trash out). The one not wanting to harm the other is right and it is the proper way to go. We must disagree strongly with compromise as the goal. If compromise is how things are to be settled, of course each side puts out extreme positions so they can “compromise”. My John Hancock — Tom Wilson, US Citizen.
4 years ago I sat in the TV lounge at San Antonio TX. as the new president was sworn in.
8 men took turns boasting about how they used the law to defraud people of another ethnic group who had, in their minds, been racist,
Not knowing that the old guy in the corner had actually protested for the end of segregation, viewing it as the civil war betrayed, he had written letters to his Senators and Congressmen to vote to end segregation. he wondered how Reverend King would have judged these men’s character.
While it may seem irrelevant to the observer that it would apply to this subject, in my mind it does, due to the fact that compromising ones principles to get along or to concede the entire objective to win a point is not compromise, it is stupidity.
Compromise is fine except if that compromise means a violation of the constitution. And I do not accept the erronerous comcept of a “living” constitution. If don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything. I would accept a copnstitutional amendment that requires all bills to begin with a proof of constitutionality instead of a symbolic statement like the progressive Speaker Boehner wanted to use.
Bob:
Regarding your comment about a “living” constitution: Regardless of whether you accept the concept or not, our country has operated with an evolving interpretation of the Constitution for over 200 years. Sir, if there is an error in interpretation, the error is yours!
Fortunately, you are part of a very, very small minority that can bicth all you want about your interpretation, but can’t do anything about it!!
We have a right and responsibility to do more than #$%^& . Evolved is a not accurate as changes are designed using intelect and evolution doesnt rely on intelect. The laws are either constitutional or not. many laws are unconstitutional or misenturpreted and are on their face unconstitutional. I exorcise my freedom of religion in schools and courtrooms and if ever challenged as such I will as MLK did follow my rights even if imprisoned for it. Just because we so far have abrogated our responsibility to defend the constitution on many issues doesnt mean we always wll. The laws that have not relied on intelect still are by design not evolution. So ask yourself what are they designed to do. Do they protect our personal and property rights? Do they take more of our rights to give them to a government who treats us more and more like property (slaves were property but dont try to say you understand that because you are black if you did you could see what we are fighting for)MLK was a republican, Cival rights were pushed more by republicans than dixiecrats Lincoln was a republican, Christian whites worked the underground railroad JFK was a republican (in policy today having stood up against communism unapolagetically, cut taxes supported family values, and pushed to put American inginuity on the moon as a show of exeptionalism) Those policies worked when Reagan cut taxes Bush cut taxes. All three had a Carterlike Malaise when taking office and returned to economic growyh policies. Bush sent us downstream after 9-11 when the no child left behind, Homeland security and No banker left behind act, and bailouts were perpetuated on the American people expanding government and government liabilities with no money to pay for it. Obama continues the failed government expansionism even through all of Bushes policies and blames him for his expansionism. The Affordable slave act more bailouts of donors and subjection of our sovereingty to the UN. I assure you we are,nt just going to ^&*%$ bootlicker
Was thinking of how to reply to such a narrow and erroneous line of think but you really hit the nail on the head. Our founding fathers had the forethought to see that they were not perfect and for our country to be able to CHANGE when the need arose and that is what the majority of the tea party fears the most Change.
Change is one thing, James Logan. Deforming our basic rights in order to ‘update’ the constitution is another. The fundamentals and premise of freedom do not change. However, men’s minds do to suit our convenience of the day. We are all Frogs in the Kettle. If you haven’t read that book, I’d recommend it.