For so many years it has been stressed that compromise is essential to the democratic system, without it, constant gridlock would occur.
Now what I think about it may or may not be well received. Dare I suggest that compromise is bad?
I suppose it would depend upon what is being compromised. On our mainstream political spectrum, there is the left, which is socialism in everything but name; and the right, which is statism in everything but name. Somehow I don’t understand how compromise between two flawed philosophies (which sum up to be: well, we’ll spend a lot of money on what we like, and none on what we don’t) will get anything accomplished.
Then, too, what does compromise mean anymore? Constructive negotiation, or completely giving into the prevailing winds?
A common example of Compromise in history, as it is always cited to us, as being successful – is our constitutional convention of 1787. I fail to see what was so successful about it.
Slowly I have come to understand that not only is our constitution imperfect, it was corrupted by the tyrannical philosophies of Hamilton and his, as they became known, federalists. Had they been kept away, maybe we could have had a constitution that is truly effective in protecting freedom. But, as it turns out, the anti-federalists compromised to the federalists, and what did they get?
A constitution without any real mechanism for restraining the growth of government and a flimsy bill of rights which has done little to keep our rights from being trampled upon. Now, see, what does compromise get us?
Stand your ground, my friends, stand for your principles.