The problem is, that in a nation where everyone has an equal right to a voice in their government, government without compromise is tyranny.
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything. "I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it." ~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life
That statement is only partially true. The part that is incorrect is the root of the problem.
For example, every year spending bills move through congress. All the lawgivers agree that the Defense Department needs money. They do not agree on the amount. A compromise on the amount is reached and the bill passes. That is an acceptable compromise.
National defense is a legitimate function of the federal government. By passing a DoD spending bill no principles (in this case the Constitutional limits of the government) were violated.
The problem is that the attitude that compromise is both normal and acceptable has been extended to issues where compromise is absolutely not normal or acceptable.
The Reagan quote refers to being happy with getting 75% of what he wanted. That is fine so long as every item in this statistic was conservative and Constitutional.
In actual practice the republican leadership at the national level gives us 75% of what the democrats want (more socialism) and call it a victory because the democrats did not get 25% of what they originally wanted.
That is not a winning strategy.
Regards
J.R.