The New "C" Word

“Compromise has become a dirty word,” Obama lamented as congressional leaders groped for a way out of a looming crisis.”  [Per Associated Press, by David Espo]

Indeed.  It seems the more ironic (if not jaw-droppingly obtuse) the statement this President makes, the more often he accidentally says something true.  It does not rival the almost transcendental nature of “Don’t call my bluff,” which is logically a literally indefensible statement — “I have four aces” could at least itself be a bluff — but Obama and the Democrats’ stance on Compromise warrants close scrutiny, as it is completely self-serving.

“Compromise” is a concept whose true meaning has been slowly whittled away by those who would abuse and take advantage of a bastardization, to where circumstances of the argument in question are deemed irrelevant, and the act itself — Compromise, qua — is rendered as what Good and thoughtful people always do in times of disagreement.  As though the fallback position for any conflict — no matter how toxic the potential result of one side’s intentions — is for both parties involved to take part and share the blame, as opposed to one side either at best precluding the damage entirely, or at least washing their hands of the matter in a public fashion. It is not hard to see how such an arrangement almost absurdly benefits one side, and can only damage the other.

It is the nature of the conflict in question which must be examined, to determine if Compromise is a rational or reasonable choice, or even a possibility. You do not compromise with a murderer, and you do not compromise with a rapist.  Aggression on the part of someone in a position of power can at most be mitigated, but it is never embraced. Even surrender is an act designed to put an end to aggression.  Concessions made at the point of a gun are not compromises, they are what is stolen in an act of theft.  If one elects to give a mugger one’s wallet while a knife is in one’s face, a court would never dream of ruling the wallet was given to the mugger and is now his property.

Likewise, a Compromise cannot be made concerning the amount of poison one swallows.  A negotiation of sorts could conceivably take place, and concessions might even be made on the part of the poisoner, but the person being poisoned cannot be said to making a Compromise by hurting themselves less. It’s as Orwellian an example of language manipulation as can be found, at least until the same process is applied to the concept of “Sacrifice,” and confiscation becomes an ostensible act of generosity. True Compromises offer a road to a better place, just not on the ideal path one would take for whatever reason,  if given the opportunity. Roads which lead somewhere worse, cannot be said to originate from a true, viable Compromise.  (The attempt, perhaps — but this only acknowledges the obvious, as any attempt can fail.)

Whenever the thirty-year cycle elapses and Democrats achieve true power, within the year or so it lasts before they are hoist on the petard of their own policies and forced by the voters to temper their damage, they never dream of compromising with Republicans about anything for any reason.  It is only when Republicans regain some measure of authority and leverage that such calls begin, that “bipartisan” again achieves a nobel luster, and the more naive Republicans begin falling over one another in an attempt to hold hands with those who would do them damage.  A true Compromise can only take place between parties with the best interests of a subject in question not just in mind, but provably in play when put to practice.  If one party is bent on destruction, either knowing or unknowingly, a true Compromise on the part of the second party is an impossibility, no matter what the first party would like to pretend is actually taking place. Only concessions are possible under such circumstances.  More importantly, it is far from the best interests of the second party to pretend anything more than what is truly taking place is transpiring. Neville Chamberlain’s place in history is testament to this.  If the stated goals and intentions of one party are provably damaging, and this damage is easily predictable and supportable through past shared experience, any attempt at Compromise is inevitably a concession to the already disproven, and only damage to anyone involved to any degree can result.  The only way to mitigate damage under such circumstances is to do whatever is necessary to point out the obvious to all potentially affected, while keeping a safe distance from the resulting, inevitable splash of mud.

From now until next November, unless there are serious inroads are made by the Democrats back towards the direction of rational and responsible behavior, let President Obama stand correct and let Compromise be considered an obscenity.  He’s due.  It is the only responsible stance for Conservatives to take. We cannot cut deals with those who would do us damage, because those deals can themselves only prove damaging.  If the damage is inevitable, let the perpetrator stand alone and wallow in responsibility.  A sharing of blame, even in hope and name of mitigating damage, is an act of false and empty nobility, and will only give our complicit Media all the more to latch onto and distract voters’ eyes from where responsibility truly rests.  It is ultimately pointless.  If we are to be forced to swallow poison, a stronger, non-lethal dose may well prove the wisest course, because it will leave the poisoner to stand alone when the sickness wears off and blame is ascribed.  The body will be potentially stronger and healthier if there are no doubts as to what to avoid in the future, and if we’re lucky some degree of immunity may well result — at least for 30 years or so.