To all of you who think the road to Liberty is paved by compromise, let me ask you this.
The author seems to excoriate all of us “purists” because we are not ready to surrender our principles on the altar of expediency like the GOP has been doing since GHWB was elected.
On what principles should we “compromise”?
The Debt?
Guns?
Marriage?
Abortion?
Obamacare?
Liberty?
Where should we erase the line in the sand?
And how do you propose that we capitulate?
And what do you hope to accomplish by engaging in capitulation on core principles?
The author suggests that all of us purists give up our purity but what will we get in exchange?
It can’t be put any better than what you said. I’ll compromise on none of them but lib RINOs already have on some and they should be voted out before they compromise on all.
Using Mitch McConnell as an example, what are his chances of pulling out a win in Kentucky? The base doesn’t trust him, his democrat opponent (last I heard) was actually even with him, and his primary opponent, Matt Bevins, is blistering the airwaves this week here in our greater Cincinnati/northern Kentucky area. He was closing on McConnell BEFORE his media assault began.
Now, relying on Kentucky being a red state is illogical, since it currently has a democrat governor, Steve Beshear, who is a potential Hillary running mate.
Mitch is losing because Mitch had no principles and the base is finally trying to spew him out of their mouths.
These recent articles are begging us not to upset Mitch McConnell’s apple cart or other republicans already in office so we can “win the congress.”
He’s losing anyway...all on his own.
What these various articles, both this and Sowell’s, are reminding us is not that Principled Individuals should surrender their principles.
Instead they are reminding us that all principled individuals acting as a group, had to compromise to develop an achievable plan and executable strategy. This happened at the the time of the Revolution, the Declaration and at the writing of the Constitution — all great acts done by a diverse group of principled people require a certain amount of compromise along with the resulting tempered unity to act as a group.
Is this harder than writing the Constitution? Does the solution have to be more perfect than the Constitution, a great document but certainly after two hundred years proving itself as limited as any written document?
If we don’t have a group of individuals large enough to win political struggles, we are then just a pair of marginal factions, refusing to unite.
The question is not, what principles are we ready to surrender on this time. The question is: How are we going to stop the progressive jaggernaut?
I'm sorry, as I said in my post to xzins, that kind of argument is just useless in the face of the evil we confront in this administration.
I never suggested we do that, from what I read, neither does the author. Taking your argument, Reagan was unfit for office for his prior acts as governor, and was a horrible president with no principles.
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT.
It is not about compromise. It is about strategy. In a war, you plan the ultimate goal. To save east blabla land from the evil commies. How to do that? Small battles are planned. Maybe some are psyops. Maybe some are to take over the radio broadcasts. Maybe some are to take river crossing x, or small town y. We are trying to get to blabla’s Capitol city, but we can’t just walk in the city gates. We need to plan strategy.
Your argument, what, should we just compromise on important issues? Is a non sequitur.
Let’s say our goal is to inform all voters of what a free country would look like, and how THEY have the power to achieve it, to fight back, and how the party who controls the info they are getting is only PRETENDING to offer them things, but is actually enslaving them.
Our battles might look like: offering money to candidates ONLY IF THEY INSIST ON DEBATE MODERATORS WHO ARE CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES. Or gathering money for billboards and TV ads that explain what household guns are used for, to protect against tyranny and bullying from criminals and rogue cops or government. Have the ad be narrated by John Lott etc. What about an ad on TV done by an accented Hispanic American who discusses how difficult it is for him as a hard working contractor to compete for bids when he pays all the taxes and health stuff for his legal American team, and his competitors hire illegals who aren’t even supposed to be here, and will put him and his team out of business.
The side goal of course is to make the bogus issues of the media, Obama, and our loser republicans become totally irrelevant because our informed voters will be like us, able to think through issues honestly.