Compromise Politics
Do we become more free when we compromise?
Compromise, Compromise, Compromise—this is all you hear in politics nowadays. My question is: does compromising make us more free?
As I ponder this question, I cannot think of a single instance where compromise has made us better. Have we lessened our debt through compromise? Have we stopped shedding the blood of innocent unborn children because of compromise? Has education improved? Have we stopped the sodomy of our youth? How about protecting our lands, our borders, our water, our liberties, our freedoms—have these been safeguarded through compromise? How about gun control? Compromise will always infringe on the Second Amendment. Can you think of one thing that has improved because of compromise?
Did our Founding Fathers compromise to give us our Constitutional Republic? One of the fiercest arguments was over congressional representation—should it be based on population or divided equally among the states? The framers compromised by giving each state one representative for every 30,000 people in the House of Representatives and two representatives in the Senate. They agreed to count enslaved Africans as three-fifths of a person. Slavery itself was a thorny issue that threatened to derail the Union. It was temporarily resolved when the delegates agreed that the slave trade could continue until 1808.
They counted Africans as three-fifths of a person. Going back to the definition of compromise—“accept standards that are lower than desirable”—this would be a difficult compromise for me, to say someone is less than a person. Did we get the Constitution ratified because of this compromise? Yes, we did, but we later fought a Civil War to recognize their full humanity. Compromise always comes at a cost later.
Compromising on what song will be our National Anthem, what our State Flag will look like, or how many days we will be in session—these are compromises I can be flexible on. However, when it comes to compromising on life, suggesting that some are less than human, or compromising my morals, principles, or integrity, that is something I will protect and defend.
Adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:4
If you can think of one instance in the last ten years where compromise has protected life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, please share.
I 100% agree with not compromising one's core principles of ethics, morality, and integrity for political expediency. In politics especially, slippery slopes are, well, VERY slippery and can lead to a bad tumble.
I do, however, believe it's good to listen to other sides of an argument with an open mind. So often, I have learned something I didn't know or thoroughly understand before (especially during the past four+ years) by considering facts and opinions different from my long-held beliefs.
After consideration, I decide whether (and why) my opinion has changed while testing that change against my core principles. If my opinion has changed following this test, I believe it's OK to revise my stance (i.e. compromise) -- again, as long as my core ethics, morality, and integrity remain intact and my performance standards remain high.
I believe that compromise always carries a price. In compromise the "subject" is kicked down the road and the price extracted, often by/from the next generation. Compromise reflects movement, not progress.