|
| |
Compromise Always
Positions to the Left
Politics/Frank
Salvato, Managing Editor |
June 3, 2005
- The word "compromise” is used quite a bit in our
nation’s capitol. It always has been. When the Democrats were in power the
Republicans wanted them to compromise on many issues conservatives thought
important to our nation. Now that the Republicans are in power it is the
other way around. But while compromise can be a good thing in theory, when
applied as defined by the liberal left it is always a disaster for the
conservatives in the United States.
There are those who, after reading the statement above, will insist that I
am a partisan operative and a conservative "Kool-Aid drinker.” To those I
say this: I will admit what I am if you admit what you are.
I admit that I slant to the right in my political ideology. Among other
things I believe in preserving the exact intentions of the US Constitution
as framed by our Founding Fathers. True to that ideal, each individual
should embrace the necessity of being responsible for their own actions.
Every single one of us should do everything in our power not to feed from
the "public trough” that is government subsidized entitlement. I believe in
less government when possible, an end to Congressional pork barrel spending,
a strong military and common sense in government.
So, it would be refreshing if just once those who insist on displaying their
misappropriated arrogance and pseudo-intellect could be honest enough to
admit what it is they really stand for.
It would be refreshing to hear the opposition, every prejudicially organic,
beret-wearing, latte-sipping, bile spewer admit that they support Robin Hood
styled "steal from the rich to give to the poor” social welfare. Just as
long as it is not their pocket being picked. I would enjoy hearing them
admit that the mainstream media slants so far to the left that you have to
tether into a safety rope for fear of being sucked into the abyss that is
Paul Krugman’s black-hole of narrow-mindedness. It would give me hope for
the future to hear any member of the MoveOn.org crowd confirm they dream of
a global socialist society that is fiercely anti-capitalist and pro-European
Union. It would be simply "fabu” if all those Hollywood hypocrites who said
they would move if George W. Bush won – both the first and second times –
packed without a word and got the hell out. Can we live without another
self-congratulatory awards show or film festival and do without Alec
Baldwin’s unjustifiable arrogance? Perhaps, if we simply suck it up and
persevere.
I suppose I have broadly defined the opposing sides in the current Culture
War taking place. Imagine that.
That being said, let’s tackle this idea of "compromise.”
It really doesn’t matter what the subject matter is, the word compromise
spells disaster for conservatives. It is always employed in an inequitable
fashion. "Compromise” always positions to the left.
Not too long ago our education system was completely immersed in the idea of
teaching the basics to our children. Reading, writing, math and science were
the core and many times the only subjects. Back then a high school education
meant something and every 8th grade graduate could read.
But through the spirit of compromise the liberal left has turned our schools
into places where subjects far from those considered "the basics” are being
taught. Where little Johnny used to write compositions on the life of George
Washington to satisfy a history or English requirement he is now writing
essays on Che Guevara in the name of diversity and tolerance. Little Susie
used to learn how to conjugate a verb. She is now learning how to apply
condoms to cucumbers. Parents are barred from attending assemblies where
anti-government material is being presented to their children as well as
classrooms during programs that talk about ‘diversity and tolerance’
sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Ironically, when the two eras are compared, the quality of education before
the "compromise” was infinitely superior.
Recently, a group of perhaps well-meaning but ultimately naïve Republican
senators led by John "Hey, there’s my liberal friend John Kerry” McCain
compromised with a group of senators from the other side of the aisle. This
compromise also ended up limping over to the left leaving the American
people scratching their heads over the definition of the caveat
"extraordinary circumstances.” So far we, the majority, have seen one of
President Bush’s judicial nominees approved. Now we are "stalled” – Lord
knows we can’t use the word filibuster anymore because of the "compromise” –
on the nomination of John Bolton to the UN.
Is there anyone who really believes that the first time President Bush
nominates a Constitutionalist to the Supreme Court the Democrats aren’t
going to filibuster and scream compromise again?
Here’s a fact: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is loaded with some of the
most liberal judges in the history of the US judiciary. Their verdicts are
consistently the most overturned of any court in the nation, the size of
their district considered. Yet when President Bush nominates conservative
judges in an effort to "balance the scales” liberals like Teddy "You can
swim, right?” Kennedy screech that Republicans are trying to tilt the
balance of power in their favor through the judiciary. This is their idea of
compromise. Not too equitable is it?
We conservatives can continue to talk ourselves into believing that we are
doing what needs to be done in the name of "moving things forward” when we
"compromise” with the liberal side of the aisle. But, to paraphrase from a
song by Bruce Springsteen, we move ‘one step forward, two steps left’ every
time we do.
|
|
