In every political debate these days we are greeted to an endless cacophony of calls for “compromise.” Of course, those calls are directed towards the political Right. It would be understandable if such caterwauling were limited to the Left, but many of the most vociferous mavens of “compromise” actually pose as Republicans, “conservatives” and “independents.” They run the gamut: commentators, radio personalities, elected officials and journalists.In the days leading up to the political showdown these people can be counted upon to criticize any conservative or Libertarian who refuses to stand on principle. They are admonished to stand firm on limited government and individual liberty. Yet the moment the issue comes to the fore, “compromise” becomes the only objective the critics seek.
They begin by accepting the premise of the Left; that the issue being addressed is a “crisis”. Next is the conclusion that the government must act now to save the people from the impending calamity. Since the Left is most often the advocate for the government solution, it is the Right that must “compromise” so that something can be done. No one bothers to question whether there really is a “crisis” and if so, why government action is the only option? They never even ask whether the proposed law or regulation will solve the problem or exacerbate it. Those who do so are summarily dismissed as being blind to the needs of the common man. They are unrealistic, idealistic obstructionists who are holding the business of the people hostage.
Fact is, “compromise” is only possible when the parties to a dispute agree on the underlying premise. In such a case each may moderate his position so as to reach a solution. But when each is of a wholly different position on the underlying premise, the very concept of “compromise” is moot. The only option available is to advocate his respective position, win or lose. Any moderation can only be accomplished if one or both abandons his principles.
But doesn’t that mean they never had principles to begin with?
"accepting the premise of the Left; that the issue being addressed is a “crisis”
ReplyDeleteamen, amen, amen. I remember people being glued to the television at my health club watching the debt crisis "deadline." As if planes would fall from the sky and volcanoes would erupt if we didn't increase our debt ceiling.
Little known fact, the vast majority of our debt is to the Federal Reserve, a private bank that we could easily give the finger to. I have no problem paying back China and Japan but why not just give the Fed the finger?
Funny Allen. But this has been the modus operandi of Socialism for over 2 centuries. You trumpet a “crisis.” If you don’t have a real one you can create it or simply label a normal and innocuous problem a “crisis.” Then you lead the charge against. You convince the people that the issue is to important to just accept the status quo. Justice and the very future of mankind demand that something be done now. Your opponents will naturally “call a spade a spade” at which point you can label them defenders of the injustice you are fighting. Given time, your opponents will “compromise” with you to get something done and the goal post will have been moved Left. A few years down the line you start the process over again with a brand new cause. This is what Marx and other Socialists (British Fabians foremost) called, “incrementalism.” They have been so successful because our side always caves under pressure. Moreover, we spend more time fighting their issues than actually addressing their ideology. You can have the former without the latter.
ReplyDeleteYou'll like the Iron Lady.
ReplyDelete