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.
Follow the links below for the rest of the series:
Follow the links below for the rest of the series:
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six
The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven
No comments:
Post a Comment