Whether called compromise, bipartisanship, or <<the Democrats’ new flavor of the day goes here>>, the tactic has been pushed on Americans through a concerted effort by the Democrats, Uniparty, and legacy media when the reality is that the political compromises made in recent decades have all been in the leftward direction.

For example, Reagan compromised with hyper-partisan Democrat House Speaker Tip O’Neill and the Democrats on tax reform in the mid-1980s. He was promised two dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of proposed tax increase in order to liquidate the annual federal deficit. And what did Democrats do? The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) was passed in 1982 as a  supposed “grand compromise.” The Democrats pocketed the tax increases (the largest in history at that point in time) while reneging on the spending cuts, as noted here.

This happens all the time. When have Democrats EVER given up something truly important to them in order to seal a compromise with their Republican political opponents? It simply never happens!

Compromise and fair dealings are possible between willing parties who share moral values and deal honestly with one another – at least in the non-political realm. For example, compromise on price in commercial transactions is legitimate.

Bartering was one such legitimate means to facilitate a mutually agreed-upon fair exchange, as described here:

The history of bartering dates all the way back to 6000 BC. Introduced by Mesopotamia tribes, bartering was adopted by Phoenicians. Phoenicians bartered goods to those located in various other cities across oceans.

Babylonians also developed an improved bartering system. Goods were exchanged for food, tea, weapons, and spices. At times, human skulls were used as well. Salt was another popular item exchanged. Salt was so valuable that Roman soldiers’ salaries were paid with it. In the Middle Ages, Europeans traveled around the globe to barter crafts and furs in exchange for silks and perfumes. Colonial Americans exchanged musket balls, deer skins, and wheat.

When money was invented, bartering did not end, it become more organized. Due to lack of money, bartering became popular in the 1930s during the Great Depression. It was used to obtain food and various other services. It was done through groups or between people who acted similar to banks. If any items were sold, the owner would receive credit and the buyer’s account would be debited.

The introduction of money became a proxy for bartering. A helpful graphic summarizing the history of money is found here.

Whether through barter or monetary exchange, transactions are possible between all kinds of people regardless of “race, color, creed,” etc. The system works well for tangible commodities; compromise is the underlying concept that makes such transactions possible (at some point, both parties have to agree to the exchange). However, in matters of morality and truth, there can be no compromise.

The Left have hijacked the basic concept of compromise in the political realm by inserting the “free radical” (and malarkey) of “moral equivalence” into the equation. Moral equivalence is the Marxist claim that two radically different people/nations/political-ideological systems are taking the same actions and should be judged and treated the same way. The problem is that the concepts of good and evil are purposely not considered.  Moral equivalence (also referred to as moral relativity) is a cancer on the body politic. Here are examples in the political arena, as noted here:

Liberals frequently use moral equivalence to attack conservative values while having nothing to say about the damage that liberal values have done to society. For example, liberals have used moral equivalence to attack Christianity (such as by bringing up the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition) when the real damage done by Islam over the centuries and into the present is pointed out by critics of Islam, as an attempt by liberals to minimize, excuse and ignore what Islam has done.

Likewise, liberals have attacked capitalism and free enterprise (both of which create prosperous societies, which liberals have benefited from but conveniently ignore for the sake of their narratives) using moral equivalence when the damage done by the unworkable systems of socialism and Communism (the latter of which has been responsible for the deaths of more than 100 million people to date) is brought up by critics, also an attempt by liberals to justify and defend socialism and Communism.

Let’s put this discussion of moral equivalence smack dab in the middle of one of the most contentious political issues of our time: abortion. Abortion is the holy grail for the Democrat Party; it is their “hill to die on,” and no dissent is allowed, especially in their own political party.

Compromising with abortionists (especially those who support late-term, or “post-birth” abortions, including The Hologram and his Marxist VP) confers on them moral equivalence where none can rightly exist in a truly moral world. Moral equivalence says that you are no better than they are. Therefore, their belief – that killing a viable human being (frequently merely for personal convenience purposes – is just as morally valid as is your belief in the right to life. Moral compromise rejects the concept of right and wrong. It says that everyone is equal, all desires are equally valid, all actions are equally valid, and everyone should compromise to get along.

Where do you compromise with the pro-abortion crowd in the Democrat Party? At the number of weeks at which a pregnancy can be legally terminated? On what the definition of “health of the mother” means in allowing an abortion? On whether parents have any say in their minor daughter’s decision? No moral equivalence exists in this situation, and those supporting abortion never discuss the moral dilemma involved in ending the life of a human being – mainly because they suppress what their consciences scream at them about the barbarism of abortion.

The bottom line is this: to suggest compromise with such people is to sanction abortion. There is no other way to put it. At what price do conservatives compromise their souls to agree with this evil and immoral practice?

There are any number of issues that present moral dilemmas about which the Democrats and their media sycophants would have conservatives compromise away their principles:

• Voter ID. We are supposed to be disenfranchised through voter fraud rather than implement strong voter ID to “true the vote.” How did that work out during the 2020 election?
• Gun control. We are supposed to give up our 2A rights and enable leftist tyranny. The Hologram makes no secret that he and the Democrats are going to push gun control laws to the limit over the next few years.
• Freedom of expression. We are supposed to keep our political opinions to ourselves in public places and on campuses because we might “offend” leftists. That’s the essence of the cancel culture, too. We get canceled if we engage in political speech or defend our cultural heritage with which the leftists disagree. They would repeal the First Amendment if they could get away with it.
• 4^th Amendment protections. We are supposed to ignore the Obama regime’s illegal domestic surveillance of journalists, US senators, Republican political opponents, and others. The Hologram’s crew has taken the baton and run with it. At least the US Supreme Court understands the issue, as noted in a ruling last week:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously [last] Monday against warrantless searches by police and seizures in the home in a case brought by a man whose guns officers confiscated after a domestic dispute.

• Religious expression. We are supposed to suppress Judeo-Christian religious expression of values in the public square because it might “offend” others (never mind that other religious expression is lauded and promoted). Ask the Jewish Americans who have been attacked by pro-Palestinian rabble since Hamas attacked Israel whether the Democrats (especially the Squad!) support their religious expression or not.
• Riot control. We are supposed to let the likes of Antifa and BLM run wild in the streets and perpetrate any manor of violent crimes in support of their “political objectives” and “rage.” We are also supposed to excuse leftist politicians and law enforcement when they refuse to enforce local public access and safety laws and violence is committed on the persons of conservatives, innocent bystanders, and private property.
• Assimilation. We are supposed to give away the greatest strength of American culture in order to allow the Left to continue their divisive multi-cultural policies disguised as “diversity” that have fractured the country since the Obama era and accelerated by The Hologram and his minions.
• Open borders. We are supposed to forget about our national security concerns, including increased incidence of communicable diseases, illegal drugs (think of all the fentanyl-related deaths!), human trafficking, demand for taxpayer-funded services, dispersion of illegal aliens all over the US, etc.
• Pedophilia. We are supposed to sweep the Jeffrey Epstein case under the rug because the Clintons are directly involved, right? Epstein wanted to be known as the co-founder of the Clinton Foundation – and Bill Clinton made at least 26 flights on the “Lolita Express” to Pedo Island.

What’s to compromise on these issues? What’s the bipartisan compromise that enhances conservative principles and morals on any of those topics? We are not going to see anything from the Left other than a demand that we ignore our principles and concerns, and when we “compromise,” we inch American culture leftward just as the Left have planned and executed since the days of Woodrow Wilson and his “progressive amendments”.

Conservatives must remember that, at times, it is easy to believe that the item we think we desire (compromise and the elusive comity that we expect from the Left when we do compromise with them) is worth more than it actually is and underestimate the value of our own positions.

We have been conditioned by the Left, including the legacy media, elected Democrats, and polls, to believe that compromise and bipartisanship are admirable and must be sought at all costs, and that conflict is “bad” and must be avoided. We are encouraged to give away our principles to achieve compromises because the Democrats and legacy media have convinced people over the years to give away their souls in the interests of bipartisanship and compromise: “Compromise is good; partisanship (and defending one’s moral principles) is bad.”

Sorry, friends; we’ve been sold a bill of goods. “Compromise” has been a losing strategy for us for decades. Compromise with the Left has gotten us into the deep hole in which we find the nation today. It’s the reason we’ve been losing the culture war and why the Left have taken over most of our political and cultural institutions. We need to fight back and DEFEAT the Left politically at every turn – on every subject while defending our core moral principles – and forget about the fool’s gold that is “compromise.” It’s our only hope if we wish to preserve the Republic.

The end.