Sunday, March 20, 2016

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 9, Compromise and Insanity



It frequently comes up in the discussion of politics that one party accuses the other of being stubborn and unwilling to compromise. I'm quite sick of it. I think if I ever come face to face with a politician, particularly a Republican, who says to me, "Brett, I can reach across the aisle and work with them to get things done," I would likely lose control and punch the son-of-a-bitch right in the face. Yes, in the next three seconds I would find myself face down on the ground in handcuffs. Yes, it would be expensive and I would very likely spend several years in jail. But it would give me the opening at the trial of saying to the accusing politician that he is obviously incapable of working out a compromise with someone who wants to punch him in his face; and thus, I would be taking, so to speak, one for the team.

The lesson, if you will, is that there are two types of compromise. There are times where a compromise is for the benefit of the People. There are times when compromising works to the detriment of the people.

I admire the tendency and tenacity of any person to try to get along and work things out. It is a mark of honest and earnest civility to do so. But you cannot compromise with evil and ever have it work out to be a good thing.

Let's say that you are selling me a car. You want ten thousand for it. I think it's only worth eight thousand. We compromise and I buy the car for nine thousand. This is a good and fair compromise because we have willingly agreed and both benefited from the deal.

Let's use, to provide a contrast, an example where I have expressed my desire to kick you in the shin. Let's say that I want to kick you ten times. You want to not be kicked at all. There is no sane compromise possible. Any so-called  compromise would result in your personal injury and I'd kind of think of you as a nut job to accept any kicking at all.

Now let's take that concept into politics. I voted for George W. Bush (and other Republicans) because he said he was going to reduce the debt, reduce the deficit and reduce the size of the federal government. Let's say that the position to be compromised with, as an arbitrary figure for the sake of discussion here, would be a reduction of all of these things by twenty percent. A valid compromise with the Democrats would have been to reduce them by ten percent, or anything resulting in a demonstrably smaller deficit, debt and government. Instead the size of the government increased by forty-seven percent under his "leadership." And the debt and deficit increased correspondingly. This is not a compromise. This is an acceptance of insanity. This is being sold down the river. This is a knife in the back betrayal at its worst and incompetence at best.

Even if you tried to make the case that the Democrats wanted to increase the size of the government by three hundred percent (just to pick a wild number, because we all know that every "self respecting" Democrat would really want to increase the government by a thousand percent) and "W" negotiated or "compromised" them down to just forty-seven percent, it still works out to be a horrible abomination of a "deal" for us limited government/maximum freedom types of people. This is not a compromise and to accept it or justify it or agree with it in any capacity, as a limited government supporter, is analogous to being complicit with insanity.

Taking the above argument to the Constitution, Article Four states specifically; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" [emphasis mine]. It also says; "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;" [emphasis mine].

It does not say that they shall be bound to it except for the times when for political convenience, and for the sake of their reelection and maintenance of political power, they can throw out the Constitution and do any damn thing they want and call it "compromise" to make it sound amenable and good.

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW!!!! PERIOD. It is the equivalent of the Ten Commandments in Christianity. If someone wants to murder a hundred people just to amuse himself you don't compromise with that and let him kill only fifty. The Soviet Union wanted to take over America. We don't compromise with them and give them twenty-five states. Any compromise with the Constitution, whether it is to add something to it or subtract something from it, is a violation of the law.


Compromise is where the end result is beneficial to all who are involved. Anything else in the field of American politics, is simply negotiating with criminal insanity to the effect of selling out our freedom for the gain of personal political power.

No comments:

Post a Comment