Some things are vastly over rated. Atlantic Coast Conference football is not good enough to merit an automatic BCS (Bowl Championship Series) bowl appearance for the conference champion. Rap music is over rated. We might describe it as monotonic anti-social indecipherable blather. Certainly, “Reality TV” is over rated. It is rarely true reality and barely qualifies as television….definitely not as entertainment television. Most political compromises are over rated. They are crowned with the mantle of wise accommodation, when in fact, they do little to achieve real goals or address pressing problems. In many cases the compromise may erect barriers to a satisfactory solution. A true compromise involves two directions of seemingly equal value that are bound and trimmed to provide a satisfactory workable solution for the advocates of each path. In my personal view the critical operative word is “satisfactory.” Too often political operatives adopt a compromise merely to put off the arduous task of arriving at the best answer to a vexing problem.
Compromise is never a good option in matters of principle. Where the underlying principle is intact, compromise may be necessary regarding an amount or a time frame to reach agreement among the parties. But compromising on principle is a losing proposition. When one yields on a matter of principle, one is, in effect, admitting that the principle has no value. Negotiations become browbeating and bullying because one side recognizes that the other has surrendered the moral high ground of principle. Compromising on matters of preference is a good approach in marriage, partnerships and ad hoc social encounters. We have all witnessed amazingly bullheaded people who had a “my way or the highway” attitude about unimportant matters. We should not ever confuse that immovable personality disorder with someone who stands his or her ground for a principle. There’s a Kenny Rogers classic called “The Gambler,” and one of the verses includes “know when to hold them and knowing when to fold them.” Always “hold” for principle, but be willing to “fold” on minor matters.
Now comes the big question of the day: Are most career politicians capable of detecting the difference between a principle and “small potatoes?” Is it possible that their arrogance is so great that they view everything, or at least most things, as unworthy of defending? It must be a flaw in the psyche of most career politicians that causes them to ignore or minimize some of the most basic principles of good governance. For them “the deal is the thing,” and they can smugly approach the cameras and crow about what a difficult process they endured while arriving at a ‘solution” that “serves the best interests of the American people.” In their feeble little ego-centric minds runs the following refrain: “Whew! That’s over for now. Time for drink.” How about drinking some hemlock, Clowns? Cut the DEAL and cut outta there….that’s no way to run a country.
Many politicians run for office while professing the love and loyalty for the Constitution. They glibly discuss the Founders and the Framers as they extol the wonders of our glorious democracy…..huh? Democracy? No wonder they appear so eager to ignore principles while engaged in the business of the nation. Democracies are popularity contests. Examine any statewide issue that’s on the ballot. Advertising, posters, troops of supporters or opponents appearing on radio and television attempt to convince the voters that their position is the best one. The purpose is to amass the greatest sum of votes on Election Day. In a Republic, on the other hand, citizens elect representatives to perform two major services. The first is to represent the people of the district or state and prevent their isolation or abuse by the Federal Government or other states. The second responsibility is to thoughtfully and fairly weigh the desires of the district or state versus the overall good for the nation. Elected officials are presumed to use their calculating powers for weighing the nation-district advantage….not to support noxious and costly proposals that aid their re-election prospects but subvert what is preferable for the country. This dynamic explains the prevalence of “pork” in so many legislative initiatives. Politicians sought favor with various constituencies using “other people’s money,” without measured consideration about the impact of such appropriations on the nation’s fiscal health. All “pork” spending is compromising. “I’ll vote for yours, if you vote for mine.” Principles are absent, and we get “bridges to nowhere” and projects that should be adopted locally.
People especially political types who refuse to compromise on basic principles are usually characterized as “obstructionists.” Their strong stance slows or stops the unprincipled compromise from going through. If the rhetoric becomes more heated, we often hear terms like “ideologue,” “extremist, “ or any number of unflattering terms designed to weaken the holdout’s resolve as well as to activate his or her constituents’ pressure. One shouldn’t bend when critical questions are being decided. Holding to principle, standing firmly with the Constitution of the United States, and weighing every vote or decision on the scales of Liberty are absolutes. There is no nearly principled stance, no almost-Constitutional position, and definitely no approximately-free approach to Liberty. The debate should never be about the wisdom of a certain absolute because they are foundational and vital for the rebirth of our republic. Any other position, any nuanced compromise of principle condemns us to the quicksand of socialism and the quagmire of irrelevancy.
Heard Tuesday’s and Wednesday’s from 6:00pm to 7:00pm on 1370 WSPD, Toledo, Ohio
