FREEDOMSITE.US
Editorials III:
January 17, 2011
We have mentioned this before, but the subject deserves its own brief consideration. The thesis here is that, in short, compromise, in and of itself, is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It all depends upon the context.
So, before getting to the main subject, I will spend this one paragraph discussing the context. I will not try here to argue for the assertions in this paragraph, as they are covered throughout Freedomsite.US: We believe that no self-sufficient government1 or society in history has long prospered if it embraces socialism, or even if it is foolish enough to move significantly toward socialism. Nor could such a government ever prosper in the future, as the ideology of socialism has one immense and unavoidable flaw. It depends upon assumptions about human nature that are simply not correct. (See, for example, the “seven principles” of Dr. Lawrence Reed.) We believe that a significant faction in our country, particularly the “progressives” in our government and other positions of power, are deliberately and steadfastly moving us toward their socialist goals, whether or not they recognize what they are doing or would put that name on it. We believe that the road to socialism is a slippery slope – that steps in the wrong direction (toward socialism) are sometimes difficult to recognize, and are almost always very, very difficult to reverse. (Try taking away “entitlements” once they are in place. Look at all the success they are having at that in Greece, Ireland and Belgium.)
So, given that perspective, how should we feel about compromise? As children, we were taught that compromise is good. It is, after all, what makes civilization work. Without compromise, we would have anarchy, and NOT the “peace and love”, everyone can do his own thing and we will all get along fine kind. However, successful compromise depends on the parties being honest, or at least transparent in their positions. In other words, just like in every other arms-length deal, everyone has to know what is being given up and what is being gained, or else someone will be cheated. The problem we have today is that intentions are being concealed and truth has become a victim of ideologies. Worse than that, the untruths we face are often not simple outright lies. In today’s “spin doctor”, advertising oriented society, the nuances of half-truths, distortions, and “little white lies” have become art forms. How about “hope and change”? In the last presidential election which candidate wanted to change the way our federal government operates – get rid of earmarks, make government REALLY transparent, and the like? And which one promised “change” – without really defining it, because what he really wanted was for the government to continue operating as usual since it was, and still is, doing just fine at moving us slowly, but inextricably, toward socialism?
Today, we are constantly hearing that we all just need to work together to MOVE FORWARD. MOVE FORWARD! MOVE FORWARD!!! Well, that sounds good. Who doesn’t want to move forward? But move forward toward what? Toward socialism? We believe that most of the “progressive” measures that have been passed, and that are being proposed, are moves in exactly the wrong direction. I guess you could call that moving forward. But the proponents of that phrase, just like the proponents of “hope and change” don’t want you to consider the fact that, while there is a “forward” that is the opposite of “backward”, there is another subtle implication in the accepted usage of “forward” – you can move forward to the East or forward to the West. You can move forward toward the left or forward toward the right. You can move forward in the right direction, or in the exact opposite direction. You can move forward toward the ultimate destruction of the free world, or you can move forward toward trying to strengthen the country and ideals that we love, to the betterment of all mankind.
The above is the perfect analogy for my point here. If someone wants to move us a mile in the wrong direction, and we “compromise” and move instead only a half-mile in the wrong direction, how have we progressed? If they then propose again that we move a mile in the wrong direction, and we again compromise, then the progressives have achieved their first mile-marker. Then they will propose that we move two miles more toward destruction. Will we then all remember what our mothers taught us – that compromise is good - and find ourselves yet another mile in the wrong direction? We HAVE to take a hard line. NOW! Indeed, it is not nearly sufficient to stop the progress “forward” toward socialism. We must turn around, and move forward in the right direction, because we cannot even begin to sustain the debt that we already have. The interest alone is killing our economy. We need DRASTIC budget cuts, beginning this year. And the very last thing we need is tax increases to feed the government monster even more. (Again, please refer to the other articles in Freedomsite.US, such as “Let’s Get Rid of the Deficit” for a more detailed discussion of these points.)
As I said in the lead article in Freedomsite.US, “Those who meet the other side half way, and then half again, and half again, might just as well concede defeat at the outset.” But that is what we have been doing. That is what the Fabians, and their expert practitioners such as Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama have relied on. Baby steps. Baby steps toward their dreams of a Socialist Utopia. Please join with me in raising our voices against compromising with the enemy.
1. Some people will argue about this, but they are wrong. For example, anyone foolish enough to argue the old saw about Sweden's "success" should note that (1) Sweden is not "self sufficient" in that it is spared the expense of really having to defend itself because it lives under the protection of our very expensive military umbrella, (2) in fact, Sweden MAKES money from world turmoil, because its profit from selling arms far exceeds its own military expenses, (3) the big money aspects of the Swedish system lie outside the socialist constraints (the distribution of wealth is FAR more unequal in Sweden than it is in the United States, even though the distribution of income is seemingly more "equitable"), and (4) an honest assessment of the pros and cons of Sweden's quasi-socialist society reveals that there are significant trade-offs for the apparent "social security".
Update - 19 Sept., 2011: As I was getting ready for work today I happened to be watching the CBS News morning show. I don’t watch it often, and I didn’t have to watch long this morning to remind myself why. The commentator was opining about how many of Obama’s constituents are getting impatient with him because he compromises with Republicans instead of taking a stand. Obviously, this TV moron doesn’t understand the principles involved. To progressive socialists, the compromise IS the victory, just as it is to anyone who is advocating radical change. That’s why we can’t be goaded into compromising with the progressives. Is it wrong to refuse to compromise with evil? I think not! It is wrong TO compromise with evil.
F Eric Saunders
January 16, 2012
Someone close to me recently remarked that, in his opinion, it is a serious problem that the Republicans in congress are refusing to cooperate and compromise with the President to “get anything done”. He was, of course, just mimicking the latest load of manure being spread by the progressive/liberal media machine. Apparently, the “plan” this time is to propose a bunch of radical legislation that will get us further into debt while doing nothing to alleviate our current problems, quietly refuse to even consider any of the proposed alternatives, and then cry “foul” and “obstructionism” as often and as loudly as they can. (“If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.”) Propaganda works! But if you really understand what Progressives want to “get done”, then you probably think it would be tantamount to treason TO cooperate with them. Indeed, I am frequently quite annoyed at our Republican representatives for going TOO FAR to compromise with the evil agenda.
A LOT of people, including most of our present gaggle of Republican presidential candidates, just don’t get it. They seem to think that one candidate is pretty much the same as another – with just minor difference about how they would “tweek” the system. People think that it is OK to vote for the man (or woman) they like best, while ignoring their underlying agenda. But, in fact the Fabian/Alinsky bunch is trying their very best to take our country in exactly the wrong direction. The “sameness” between the Republicans and Democrats is merely a result of the fact that “progressives” have to move very slowly, else people will rebel at having their freedoms taken away too suddenly – while the “conservatives” have to kowtow to the progressives by compromising with them regarding big government largess, else people will rebel at having their “entitlements” reduced, and then the conservatives would NEVER get elected. After all, candidates get elected by what they promise.
But, to get back to the original train of thought here, to understand why compromise is not the virtuous thing that it is made out to be one first needs to understand that “compromise” is not inherently good. As Senator Goldwater said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Here, substitute “compromise” for “moderation”. If you want to read more about this concept, we have an article here on FreedomSite entitled COMPROMISE. Or, to gain a better understanding about why compromise is especially not called for in this particular situation, one should make an effort to better understand what we are being asked to compromise with. For that, I recommend that you read two articles – but do read them both, if you have not already, as they provide two very different perspectives on the same phenomenon. The first one is my own article at the top of FreedomSite.US entitled The Slow Civil War . I wrote this article specifically to confront the truth head on. Because it is so “in your face”, some might simply not believe that what I claim there is true. But do go on – study and read for yourself. The truth is out there. You just first have to become aware of the issue, and then research it for yourself. My aim in this article is to, at least, help you to accomplish the first goal.
Then, do please also read the second article, by David Horowitz, entitled Rules for Revolution . This is actually a “booklet”, and it may take an hour or so to read. But it is well worth it. (If you are not familiar with Mr. Horowitz, you should become so. Start by reading his bio on Wikipedia. You may find that his journey through progressivism toward truth has some parallels to your own.) But, anyway, in this particular intellectual exercise, David Horowitz succinctly examines how President Obama’s admitted adherence to Alinsky’s teachings explains much. One interesting side note is that, while I was reading reviews on another site of the Horowitz article, I saw that he was criticized for focusing on the Alinsky aspect and not even mentioning the Fabian problem. My article has exactly the opposite “flaw”. Hopefully, reading them both together will be the cure.
Eric
Note: The above cited article is on a David Horowitz’ web site entitled discoverthenetworks.org, which I highly recommend. I would have preferred to link to the title page and let you find the article, but since the path there is not self-evident on David’s page, I linked directly to the article. But, again, do check out the entire web site at www.discoverthenetworks.org .
