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.
This past session the SCUS ruled 9-0 on 45% of the cases! Most of the issues that came before The Court were prudential and not Providential. Most cases in "law and equity" are prudential.
Conservatives have trouble deciphering the difference and most liberal progressives don't know that there is a difference!
The Three Fifths Compromise is often misunderstood. It was the slave owners in the South who wanted slaves counted in full for the purposes of electoral votes and seats in the House, while the northern leaders said that if they’re not free, they shouldn’t count, because that would artificially increase the power and influence of southern states.
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.
Exactly
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.
Never compromise on Providential issues.
Compromise on prudential issues.
It is important to know the difference.
This past session the SCUS ruled 9-0 on 45% of the cases! Most of the issues that came before The Court were prudential and not Providential. Most cases in "law and equity" are prudential.
Conservatives have trouble deciphering the difference and most liberal progressives don't know that there is a difference!
Well thought out and written. Thanks.
The Three Fifths Compromise is often misunderstood. It was the slave owners in the South who wanted slaves counted in full for the purposes of electoral votes and seats in the House, while the northern leaders said that if they’re not free, they shouldn’t count, because that would artificially increase the power and influence of southern states.
Dude, I always learn something when I read any of your posts/comments. Thank you.
Who said we should compromise on principles? What spurred this post? Do tell!
Bullseye!