Topic: The Revolution
The GREAT Minnesota Compromise The word, “compromise”, has taken on sinister overtones in the modern political landscape. This negative connotation is the result of political ineptness and cowardice being passed off as compromise.by Felix
(libertarian)
Monday, January 5, 2009
The word, "compromise", has taken on sinister overtones in the modern political landscape. This negative connotation is the result of political ineptness and cowardice being passed off as compromise. Despite what some politicians might claim there is no such thing as a win-win compromise. Some pundits even put forward the idea of a win-lose compromise, but that situation is by definition, "a defeat."
Compromise is a necessary part of Republican rule, our forbearers practiced this art before, during, and after they drafted our historic Constitution. Of course our nations founders understood that compromise is the last resort before hostility, and that it is a lose-lose solution.
In 2008 the GOP had polar opposite presidential candidates in Senator McCain and Representative Paul, both of these men are worthy candidates, both deserving the respect of the RNC Caucus and the American citizenry. However, both of these men exemplify extremes in thinking: the concept that any compromise is unconstitutional and the concept that some level of defeat is always necessary for good government.
Ron Paul, the revolutionary congressman from Texas is known as the Defender of the Constitution. A principled man, Dr. Paul is a devotee to a strict form of Constitutional interpretation, an interpretation that often harkens back to a nostalgic past than never existed. The war hero and maverick John McCain is known as the senator that can reach across the aisle and form bipartisan solutions, unfortunately his solutions often erode personal liberty and exceed the enumerate powers of the government.
Is it fair to suggest that neither man knows how to compromise? In Minnesota we have developed our own special form of compromise; it is a variation on the mythical win-win and win-lose compromise scenarios: we allow the DFL to win just a little, the GOP to lose just a little, and both sides declare victory.
Of course the result of the great Minnesota Compromise has added up. The GOP in Minnesota has gone from a virtual stalemate in the State Senate to a veto proof DFL majority and from the majority in the State House to an insignificant caucus.
Compromise itself is not inherently a bad process, in fact it is a requirement of Republicanism, but this twisted caricature of compromise is destroying the important Conservative/Liberal balance.
A few key factors that we should all remember:
All power in the United States comes from the people
The Constitution enumerates the power of the government
There are inalienable human rights, both individual, and for the collective (i.e. we have formed this Republic to enable a society of individuals to live together)
Everyone has opinions, and people interpret EVERYTHING differently (this is why empathy is key to solid government practices)
Sometimes it is better to lose for a principled causeü Sometimes it is better to compromise to avoid defeatü Sometimes it is better to win than compromise
Reality and Perception are seldom the same
Empirically people are wrong more than they are right, that includes you, but that also includes them
The views expressed in this
article are those of Felix only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Felix is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
