Imagine you’re the coach on a football team. One of your receivers is interfered with and
prevented from catching what would have been a 20-yard pass on the five yard
line, maybe costing you a touchdown. The
penalty should be that your team gets the ball on the five yard line and you
have a first down. But suppose the ref
comes to you after conferring with the other team’s coach and says, “The other
coach wants to negotiate the penalty.
He’s offering to let you have the ball on the ten yard line and it’ll be
second down. What do you say? Are you willing to compromise?”
There’s that word the democrats are so in love with
these days.
Of course, that kind of request would probably bring
confused silence followed by laughter followed by justified outrage by the
coach and fans of the team being asked to compromise. And the outrage would be justified by the
fact that both teams, by virtue of being part of their league, have already
agreed
to the rules in advance. The negotiation
about what kind of penalties will be enforced for any particular infraction
have already taken place, and there is absolutely no legal, moral, ethical or
logical reason for them to compromise.
This is precisely the same situation we are facing when it
comes to so many issues being debated in Congress every day. Republicans are being asked to “compromise”
even though the rules were already negotiated and agreed upon long ago with the
founding of the Constitution, and there is nothing to be gained by republicans
if they “compromise.” There is only more and more to lose, which is the same as
saying that a “compromise” is ALWAYS a win for democrats.
But democrats know this.
It’s why they’re so eager to “compromise.”
Again and again Obama and his cohorts in crime are poised to
win the day by controlling the course of the discussion and outsmarting witless
republicans who, instead of standing up en masse and simply pointing to the
Constitution, let themselves be embroiled in an argument about who is, or is
not, willing to “compromise.” This would
be like the coach in the scenario above arguing with the ref over yards and
downs instead of simply saying, “No way.
We play by the rules.”
Sadly, we’ve already compromised so much over the decades
that it simply doesn’t occur to most republicans to just go back to the rule
book.
"Rule book"?
ReplyDeleteWhat rule book?
(I was playacting as a Democrat. How'd I do?)
I think I'll nominate you for a Golden Globe. :)
ReplyDeleteExcellent, CW. Your analogy is spot-on (and a timely one at that). As for who is controlling to course of discussion ... someone somewhere needs to get their act together and re-direct it.
ReplyDeleteReading your post I was reminded of the following quote: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Absolutely brilliant, CW. As to just one of the thousands of "compromises", one on topic for today would be "signing statements", a trick (compromise) initiated by one Ronald Reagan.
ReplyDeleteThat rule book is just so constraining.
Thank you, Mrs. AL. Good quote by Einstein!
ReplyDeleteSomething happens to people when they become politicians. It’s as if they get so used to selling their souls that they forget how to stand on principle or have a backbone.
Thank you, Drpete.
ReplyDeleteDon’t worry about signing statements because Obama promised he wouldn’t be doing any of that. And he kept that promise for almost two whole months!
To tell the truth I’ve only recently become aware of the practice of “signing statements,” and my feelings are mixed. If they are used by the POTUS to reign in attempts by Congress to act outside the bounds of the Constitution, then I find it hard to take issue with that. If, however, their purpose is for the POTUS to act outside the bounds of the Constitution, then I am against it.
In an ideal world we would not need signing statements; but of course we are far and away from an ideal world.
Your thoughts?
"Signing statements" are nonsense, IMO.
ReplyDeleteAs Prez, you either sign a bill into law or veto it. What's this idea of "I'll sign this into law, but only enforce the parts I like" idiocy?
CW, you make a good point in your analysis of compromise. However, I will take compromise over the damage a full Democratic Congress and President can do.
ReplyDeleteIn business, and in technology we continually make compromises and trade offs. It is how things work, without we would never get anywhere. I know you do not like compromising on principles, but there are many places were compromise has worked to invent many innovative things we use today.
Hi Brian,
ReplyDeleteMy natural instincts make me inclined to agree with you; however, whenever someone I admire, such as Ronald Reagan, takes a position that seems contrary to my principles, I like to take a moment to think it thru carefully. What do they know that I don’t know? Playing devil’s advocate here, what happens when a POTUS has a congress that’s determined to act unconstitutionally (i.e. a democrat congress) and they have a veto-proof majority? His only options are to not sign the bill, in which case it will eventually become law as is, or sign it with a signing statement that at least gives him some control over how the law is applied.
I agree, that’s not how things should work. Ideally congress should never be able to advance an agenda that is contradictory to the intent of the Constitution. But we all know the reality of our situation. For whatever reason, the executive branch seems reluctant to challenge congressional authority in court, which is what seems to me to the correct course of action rather than signing statements. For the same reason, I assume, congress seems just as reluctant to challenge the legality of signing statements (or else we wouldn’t be having this discussion).
Like so many things, it’s all a game. But there are times when we have little choice but to play. I welcome your feedback, as always.
Hi Patrick!
ReplyDeleteI see you’re not “anonymous” any more. :)
I’m not entirely opposed to compromise. There are times when compromise is appropriate and/or necessary, such as when the country is divided on an issue that is not clearly guided by the Constitution.
The use of the term “compromise” in gov’t implies that both parties are coming from a position of equal validity. In other words, both have either a moral, ethical, legal and/or logical position to defend. But since the agenda of democrats usually requires the further decimation of the Constitution, this is not the case. When republicans do not fight off these attempts or challenge democrats on their abuse of the term “compromise,” they do a great disservice to the nation because they participate in brainwashing people to believe that there really are no hard and fast rules. Anything goes. Nothing could be more damaging to the country.
You say that compromise is sometimes necessary to get things done. If you compromise on the design of car in order to get it off the assembly line faster, then in all likelihood you have compromised on the quality of the car. In other words, you’ve traded short-term gain at the expense of long term value. The same is true when you compromise on principle. You may get something in the short term, but what you lose long term would have been far more valuable.
My thoughts, CW, are that I agree with BrianR. And just a note on President Reagan: It was he who first decided to not enforce the border and to grant amnesty to illegals.
ReplyDeleteAh-ha! Another stroke of Common Sense! Quit that! You might give a liberal apopleptic shock.
ReplyDeleteInterface:
ReplyDeleteIf only I could get a liberal to stop by!
Thanks for your comment!