Frankly, it isn't. We have been conditioned from birth to believe compromise is somehow 'good'. Even as I write this, I feel bad thinking that compromise isn't a welcome path for me anymore in my political views. Is it age? No, because this is a question I asked long ago in college while studying political science. Some friends would say I never compromised, forgetting my path to Libertarianism required years of questioning, change, and compromise. Even now, I am willing to compromise. Between the anarchist wing of Liberatarianism and the minarchist wing of the Republican Party. I fail to see much value in discussing policy with Democrats. They've spent too much time saying "You have nothing to offer." Well, actually there is a tremendous amount which has been offered, you've simply refused to look at the datasets that support our views. For you, it's always been "I want what I want, or at least compromise so I get a little of what I want while you get nothing."
For years, I've been taught that 'win-win' solutions are the best. They certainly are, and I try to find them whenever possible. But in this vein, how is compromise necessarily 'win-win'? It can be, certainly, but it is not always and definitely. In my day-to-day life, 'win-win' is what I live for. It's what keeps business running. But it is no longer useful in politics.
My friends who are Democrats bemoan the Republican stance saying "How can they block Obama at every turn? Why can't they compromise?" I don't doubt their sincerity of motive, their desire for what's best. I know they want to do well and good for themselves, others, and the nation. All they hear are flowery stories of 'curing cancer' or 'feeding the poor' and decide "Hey! That's a great idea, and politicians say we can do it by taxing the rich."
Great.
But I prefer shrinking the government. So do many people in this nation. When a Democrat says "I want to grow government infinity, and you don't, so let's compromise and only grow it 10%" I immediately start to get angry. Only growing it a little less than you want still constitutes growing it, and I am opposed to growing it. Where do we compromise?
We used to. We shouldn't anymore. It's time to say no. It's time to push back and take back. Which is why I don't particularly like the methods used in Oregon, but I support them. After all, Eric Holder took part in an armed takeover while at Columbia. How was his 'good' and theirs 'bad'?
The only compromise from here on in, as far as I'm concerned, is to agree to grow a Democratic program while cutting a larger one somewhere else - or not agree to growth at all. It's time for these people to choose what's important, and not throw shit on a wall to see what sticks. Nearly every article in the mainstream is heralding the idea that Joe Biden is going to cure cancer. This is, without question, one of the most laughably stupid concepts I've heard from anyone, anywhere, anytime. 'Cancer' isn't one single disease that a silver bullet cure can be created for, and chasing all the cures needed is absurdly expensive and outlandish regardless of what the mainstream journalists say.
Let's allow "Diamond" Joe Biden a return to pushing his copper business and let's start shrinking government by saying "No" to compromise that always has growth of government at its core.
