The Problem With Compromise
Watching "The Five" on Fox News I have become convinced that it is pointless to argue with liberals. The reason for that conclusion finally penetrated my brain as I watched Juan Williams comment on the role of government. From his perspective the primary task of government is to "take care of people". My view of government's task is that its duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of The United States and thereby maintain the delicate balance between civil order, international relationships, and maximal individual rights, freedom, and liberty.
These two positions have come to be mutually exclusive. When every action of government must be evaluated by how it "helps" people then discussions of liberty are automatically ruled out. All recipients of government help automatically give up some of their liberty to receive that "help". The "helping" mission is obvious in our tax code. Taxes should be funding the government operations of defense, border control, common infrastructure, and safety. Our tax code is no longer about funding these government operations as much as it is about some kind of social engineering. Taxes are used to eliminate poverty, eliminate all forms of discrimination, create jobs, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, save the planet, and provide for retirement. In fact, the actual primary activities of government are sacrificed to support the social agendas.
The Constitutional perspective operates on the fact that life is filled with risks. Taking and managing those risks as individuals is what freedom is all about. When a person with little financial resources says that "I can have a better life if I open a new business and make a profit". That person is saying that he will risk having no insurance, eating poorly, and living in poverty while he build his future. Such people have made the USA what it is today. This was the country where you were free to bet on yourself. You might fail but you were free to try and to try again. If things did not work out then the risk takers used their own survival skills or if necessary turned to friends, family, and community for help to survive the period between a failed risk and the start of a new endeavor. That new endeavor might be a new job in a new community or starting another business. Whatever the direction taken, the choice of direction was the individual's choice to make.
Liberals do not believe that anyone should take those risks. In their view it is not individual effort and responsibility that meets people's needs, it is the government. The collective wealth of the country meets the needs of all the citizens. With this as their basic premise liberals cannot even think about individual risk taking inherent in a free society. Allowing people to risk not having health insurance is cruel, stingy, and not compassionate according to reasoning based on the liberal premise of government's job to care for all.
The Constitutional versus liberal ideals of government have become mutually exclusive. There can be no compromise when neither side accepts responsibility for the concepts that define their world view. Compromise is trade-off. My opinion, based solely on my interaction with thousands of people over my lifetime, is that liberals do not understand their own basic premise and therefore cannot even imagine an alternative perspective. Conservatives are often described as religious fanatics when in fact the strictest fundamentalist religion is Liberalism. Challenges to liberal ideas are not just other ideas, they are heresy. Once defined as heresy no argument is possible.
When liberals acknowledge that theirs is not the "only true way to heaven on Earth" it will be possible to find solutions that require some sacrifice of liberty to provide necessary help for the less successful in our society. But the compromise can only occur when both sides recognize and fairly and openly debate the trade-offs between utopia and freedom.
Showing posts with label compromise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compromise. Show all posts
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The Debt Battle
Once again we see Charley Brown landing on his butt while Lucy holds the ball in the air with a grin on her face.
This week Congressional Republicans ran at the football full speed and then then tried to kick it as the Congressional Democrats played the game of "Gotcha" and won.
How did this happen? The Tea Party fueled Republicans seemed to be winning the battle and then suddenly they were on their butt.
First, the debate was about the wrong subject. The real issue was (and is) the size of government and the loss of the limited government created by the Founders. While it is true that as the government is tasked with more jobs and responsibilities, it is going to require more resources to do them.The repeated calls to increase the debt limit resulted from the "power creep" of an increasingly larger government. The dollars were and are only a symptom. If we were engaged in a global conflict such as WWII increased borrowing and higher expenditures would occur and be granted without much opposition. The government's primary task is to protect the nation. The country must spend whatever is necessary to survive. But when the national budget and its corresponding debt are regularly increasing to buy breakfasts for school children or to study the mating habits of obscure lizards someone needs to shout "STOP"! Questions need to be answered regarding why such programs are part of the federal government. Are they even Constitutional? If so how should they be funded? If not an appropriate activity such programs should be cancelled.
Thorough, rigorous, and honest debate are required to answer the questions about constitutionality and funding. Instead, this past weeks' debate was cast as a $$$ Crisis! If we don't raise the debt limit then the USA will default on its loans and be unable to borrow more money for more programs. A few naive Republicans did say "hey wait a minute, this issue is a question about the philosophy and rules of our government" but the media quickly ignored them. The innocent newcomers formulated and passed two bills to solve the problem of cost by reducing the size of government and thereby reducing the need to borrow. But the media again ignored them. In fact even their colleagues ignored them because of a word spoken by the President.
The Shibboleth of "compromise" was invoked. From that moment on any discussion that did not further the goal of compromise was ignored and/or belittled. The old guard members of Congress are masters of the "magic" of compromise. The Chief Wizard of Republicans in the Senate ignored the perfectly good bill/solutions passed by his colleagues in the house. He invoked his own plan based on compromise. In the House the chief Republican Wizard was placed under the Compromise Spell and then repeatedly undermined any opposition to compromise in the house. Ultimately he bewitched or coerced most of his chamber to accept compromise even when it meant ignoring the real problem.
Compromise is a seductive and powerful spell but it is not synonymous with "good". A compromise with the devil is still a deal with the devil. (Ask Faust how that worked out.) Do you make a compromise with a burglar so that he will only take part of your belongings? Do you make a compromise with a murderer to only half kill you?
Some would argue that the comparisons between criminal actions and the debate among the branches of government are not valid since the debate is not a criminal or moral challenge. But I disagree. Maintaining liberty and freedom in the greatest country in the history of the world is a challenge of greater import than a burglar's booty. Arthur Brooks in an op-ed in the July 25, 2011 "Wall Street Journal" raised the notion of moral courage in the debate regarding government power limits and budgets.
I believe that Congress made themselves feel good because they"Compromised" In fact they ignored the real problem and made little if any inroads on the budget symptoms. Sometimes courage means facing incredible odds and winning the battle anyway. Sometimes courage is the willingness to fight the battle even when victory may be impossible. At Bastogne in 1944 the American troops did not know if they could could hold out or not but they resisted compromising with the Nazis and won the battle and then the war. At the Alamo every man knew he would die in Santa Anna's final assault but they fought the battle instead of accepting the compromise they were offered. Ironically their defeat put iron into Sam Houston's army and the he won the war. I was hoping for courage in Congress to provide the spark and rallying point for the "bullet-less" rebellion our Constitution makes possible. Instead we got compromise and I fear a future battle may be fought with more than words, reason, and logic.
This week Congressional Republicans ran at the football full speed and then then tried to kick it as the Congressional Democrats played the game of "Gotcha" and won.
How did this happen? The Tea Party fueled Republicans seemed to be winning the battle and then suddenly they were on their butt.
First, the debate was about the wrong subject. The real issue was (and is) the size of government and the loss of the limited government created by the Founders. While it is true that as the government is tasked with more jobs and responsibilities, it is going to require more resources to do them.The repeated calls to increase the debt limit resulted from the "power creep" of an increasingly larger government. The dollars were and are only a symptom. If we were engaged in a global conflict such as WWII increased borrowing and higher expenditures would occur and be granted without much opposition. The government's primary task is to protect the nation. The country must spend whatever is necessary to survive. But when the national budget and its corresponding debt are regularly increasing to buy breakfasts for school children or to study the mating habits of obscure lizards someone needs to shout "STOP"! Questions need to be answered regarding why such programs are part of the federal government. Are they even Constitutional? If so how should they be funded? If not an appropriate activity such programs should be cancelled.
Thorough, rigorous, and honest debate are required to answer the questions about constitutionality and funding. Instead, this past weeks' debate was cast as a $$$ Crisis! If we don't raise the debt limit then the USA will default on its loans and be unable to borrow more money for more programs. A few naive Republicans did say "hey wait a minute, this issue is a question about the philosophy and rules of our government" but the media quickly ignored them. The innocent newcomers formulated and passed two bills to solve the problem of cost by reducing the size of government and thereby reducing the need to borrow. But the media again ignored them. In fact even their colleagues ignored them because of a word spoken by the President.
The Shibboleth of "compromise" was invoked. From that moment on any discussion that did not further the goal of compromise was ignored and/or belittled. The old guard members of Congress are masters of the "magic" of compromise. The Chief Wizard of Republicans in the Senate ignored the perfectly good bill/solutions passed by his colleagues in the house. He invoked his own plan based on compromise. In the House the chief Republican Wizard was placed under the Compromise Spell and then repeatedly undermined any opposition to compromise in the house. Ultimately he bewitched or coerced most of his chamber to accept compromise even when it meant ignoring the real problem.
Compromise is a seductive and powerful spell but it is not synonymous with "good". A compromise with the devil is still a deal with the devil. (Ask Faust how that worked out.) Do you make a compromise with a burglar so that he will only take part of your belongings? Do you make a compromise with a murderer to only half kill you?
Some would argue that the comparisons between criminal actions and the debate among the branches of government are not valid since the debate is not a criminal or moral challenge. But I disagree. Maintaining liberty and freedom in the greatest country in the history of the world is a challenge of greater import than a burglar's booty. Arthur Brooks in an op-ed in the July 25, 2011 "Wall Street Journal" raised the notion of moral courage in the debate regarding government power limits and budgets.
I believe that Congress made themselves feel good because they"Compromised" In fact they ignored the real problem and made little if any inroads on the budget symptoms. Sometimes courage means facing incredible odds and winning the battle anyway. Sometimes courage is the willingness to fight the battle even when victory may be impossible. At Bastogne in 1944 the American troops did not know if they could could hold out or not but they resisted compromising with the Nazis and won the battle and then the war. At the Alamo every man knew he would die in Santa Anna's final assault but they fought the battle instead of accepting the compromise they were offered. Ironically their defeat put iron into Sam Houston's army and the he won the war. I was hoping for courage in Congress to provide the spark and rallying point for the "bullet-less" rebellion our Constitution makes possible. Instead we got compromise and I fear a future battle may be fought with more than words, reason, and logic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)