Saturday, January 11, 2014


There is an aspect of compromise that is generally overlooked, especially by those who hold compromise up as a moral imperative.  It is simply this:  If you are winning, why would you want to compromise?

Let’s define our terms here, because words really do mean things.  Compromise is NOT discussing differing opinions and selecting the best one.  It is not even discussing differing opinions and selecting the best parts of each and combining them into a much better synthesis.  These are simply rational operations.  If two people disagree on the best way to do something, and one of them realizes the other really does have the better idea and adopts it, it is NOT compromise!

Compromise is when two people hold different, or contradictory ideas.  They take some parts of one and some of the other, and produce a mongrel atrocity that hasn’t a chance in hell of working.  In economics, for example, one person might say, “The free market is the best and only solution to the unemployment problem,” and another might say, “No, the free market caused the problem; the only solution is government control of the market.”

The imperative of compromise says that each person must give away something of his own position.  The result is usually something like, “We’ll let businesses with more than 1,000 employees charge whatever they want, but smaller businesses will be controlled by the government,” or, “Instead of granting amnesty to 30 million illegals, like we want, or to none, like you want, we’ll grant it to 15 million.”   Each person must put up with something they consider thoroughly evil and unworkable.  The result is a bastardized monstrosity, and when it fails, both sides say it failed because of too much pollution from the other side.

It is precisely like arguing over the amount of rat poison to put in a pot of soup – and at this level of discussion, it doesn’t matter which side of this argument is considered rat poison.

Compromise is agreeing to be raped if the rapist will use a condom.  It is agreeing to give a robber some of your money, or a politician some of your freedom.

So.  Back to compromise as a tactic of the loser.

If you truly believe that you are right, and that you can win an argument, contest, or election, would you go to your opponent and say, “Hey, your ideas are insane bullpoop, but I want to let a little of it into my plan.”  Of course not.  If you are holding a winning hand, there’s no way you’d go out of your way to give the other guy a break, at least not on a major point of principle.

When someone calls for compromise, you know immediately that they don’t think they can win the whole thing, and are hoping to sucker you into letting them have a little bit.  Next time, they’ll get a little bit more, and a little bit more, and so on, until they’ve got the whole thing.  If they’re losing anyway, any little thing they can get is a victory for them.  Think about that.   The power held by the statists today was never once granted because they were wholly right.  They got it because the other side gave it to them, a little at a time, through compromise after compromise.  That’s right.  They have NEVER been right; they have only been canny.

Truth and right need never compromise.

Obviously, this is a two-edged sword!  If the statists have the winning hand, you better believe they won’t compromise, because they understand this business.  That is what happened with the sequester and the later shutdown.  The statists knew they could not lose in the long run because their propaganda machine would turn the entire nation against those who tried to hold the line.

To reject compromise altogether is a very brave thing.   You are saying, “It will either be my way or your way, but you’re not going to get my sanction for your idiocy by including some trivial aspect of my idea.” 

It is this courage of convictions that is so pathetically lacking in the Republican leadership.  They are scared to death of losing everything.  They honestly believe, apparently, that if we agree to eat some rat poison on issues where WE have power, the Democrats will agree to eat some when THEY have power.  Unfortunately, the Democrats know how this works, and while they will give every assurance of future poison-eating, they have no intention of actually doing it.  So we eat a little poison – we accept a little of the anti-life Democrat program – and a little more, and a little more, until one day, there is no food left, and it’s all poison.

As long as we are living with this half-assed whatever it is, the propaganda mill will keep telling people it isn’t working is because of the capitalistic pollution forced on them by those Tea Party radicals.  The people, being the result of a hundred years of compromise in education, will believe it, and vote accordingly.  The only solution is to force this nation to accept one set of ideas in its entirety.  The people will then be able to see what works and what doesn’t.

The alternative is to refuse to compromise on ANY principle.  Make them do it all their way, which will be a catastrophe, or accept it all our way.  The problem with this is that their way is not survivable, and they’ll never willingly go along with doing it all our way.  We have compromised over and over, until we have arrived at the point where no more is possible.  At the present time, the statists have the upper hand, and it looks like we’ll be trying things their way for a while.  That means, unfortunately, that they will do their best to destroy our means of ever regaining control and trying it all our way.  If they are successful in this, freedom will be banished from the world, and our children for generations to come – until He returns – will live as slaves of the drooling mob.

There are only two courses of action available to us:  to go along with whatever they drive down our throats, or to abandon the constitutional process and force the issue by a passage of arms. 

This is not a new choice.  We have never had more than these two courses.  If we reject compromise, altogether, we will be forced to live under statist tyranny or resist it by whatever means are necessary.

If we continue to accept compromise, we will be forced to live under statist tyranny until we can no longer endure it, and rise up.  But by the time we rise up, our strength will have been largely compromised away. Our chance of victory will be slim.

11 Jan., 2014

No comments:

Post a Comment