Compromise is not the same thing as acquiescing...Reagan did say that he would rather have an elected official who voted with him 75% of the time then one who vote against him 100% of the time...we have never won outside of the big tent...those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
When it's the most destructive ideology mankind has ever known, yes, they are the same. Compromise is mutual. Marxism doesn't compromise. When only one side compromises, that's acquiescence. It's precisely what got us where we are today.
Reagan did say that he would rather have an elected official who voted with him 75% of the time then one who vote against him 100% of the time
Rather than a paraphrase of Reagan, I'll give you his exact words on the subject:
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
- Ronald Reagan (CPAC, 1975)