No Time for Compromises

By Steven D. Laib

Compromise has long been the tool of the political left in America.  Continuing to allow it to flourish would be a major mistake for the new Congress.

I recently received an email from a member of one of the Texas Tea Party groups in which he advocated compromise as the best tool for Republicans and Conservatives to take back control of politics.  While compromise between Conservatives and Libertarians, may well be a good idea, and certainly possible, the author failed to distinguish between them and Democrats and the Hard Left.  When I took him to task on this subject he essentially stated that realpolitik requires compromise to achieve its goals.  Obviously, this man had not studied political history, or if he had done so, he had failed to recognize what he was seeing.  Let’s take a look. 

The problem with compromise during the last half-century or so is that it almost exclusively involved Republicans supporting Democrat goals in exchange for those goals being moderated down.  Consequently, the welfare state express was slowed, but not stopped or reversed.  This left all the pieces in place for the Pelosi Reid Obama axis in 2008 to attempt the creation of an oligarchy the likes of which the American system was intended to prevent. 

But what about the issue of functioning in the world of “realpolitik?” Does realpolitik require compromise?  The general dictionary definition of this term is “politics based on practical considerations.”  However, according to historian Jacques Barzun it means “the policy of seeking material advantage instead of furthering principle.”[1]   This second definition leads us to a useful insight when viewed in the context of 20^th century history.  In fact, it points directly to one seminal fact; that the only way for conservative / libertarian interests to achieve a long-term material advantage is by not compromising their principles.  Recent events have shown that past compromises have led to the disastrous Democrat sweep of 2008.  Therefore, material advantage and principle are effectively marching in lockstep.  Abandon one and you abandon both.  Working to achieve one requires you to work to achieve both.  This is the one fact that the Republican Party leadership has largely avoided confronting for decades.  Now the nation has reached the point where the rule must be “no compromise, no surrender, no retreat.”  To do otherwise would return mean a return to the established policies of the last fifty years in which the slow march to a national demise continues, regardless of who is running things. 

At this time, we are at a point where action can still save the dying nation.  Inaction will surely result in its death.  Patience may be a virtue in many respects, but it is not when you have no time to wait.  The only compromise that may be acceptable in the current circumstances is between the Conservatives and Libertarians with respect to what the first priorities must be.  It appears that the compromise has already been struck with the realization that the one thing that has the greatest potential to kill the nation at this time is financial irresponsibility.  The Democrat Party, ever promising restraint, does exactly the opposite, and ignores the lessons of the Great Depression.  It follows the same, failed Keynesian based policies that do nothing to solve the underlying problem, while creating another; an even more massive debt.  The Conservative / Libertarian approach of reduced regulation and reduced government spending is the proven remedy.  The Democrats won’t touch it because it means reduced government power.    

The Left has long bemoaned the fact that the Constitution said nothing about what the government must do for the average citizen.  In fact, the Constitution does specify what the government must do; provide an environment of ordered liberty free from the negative influences of foreign and domestic enemies.   Aside from the fact that state socialism was not a political system under serious consideration in 1789, there was another reason why the authors of the Constitution avoided anything of the sort.  They understood the need for government moderation; a theme explored in great detail by Alexis de Tocqueville in “Democracy in America.” 

The modern Left has decided that the role of government is to provide everything to everyone and to be all things to all people.  This is an impossibility, fiscally and practically speaking. The government does have a proper duty to defend the nation and its people, but it has no such duty or realistic ability to provide everyone with a place to live, money and medical care.  Attempting to do so will result in national bankruptcy.  Lack of fiscal restraint has brought many nations in the past and will do the same to us, if we do not follow the lessons history provides. 

The time for compromises is past.  The TEA Party was an integral part of the success of Republican candidates in 2010 and will continue to be in the future.  One of the key issues for TEA Party activists is confrontation rather than compromise.  If the Republicans decide to accept the phony “pro-business” attitudes currently emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they will soon find that they have made a mistake.  The whole thing was a racket designed to keep them from doing what the electorate wants and what the nation needs.  It will divide the Republicans from the TEAs, because the Republicans would have shown themselves untrustworthy with respect to principle.  This is the bottom line when we consider realpolitik; principle and practical considerations can no longer be separated. 

Constitutional separation of powers was conceived as a means of controlling federal growth and ascendency over the states.  It failed because of the intercession of the political parties.  Now, confrontation between the states and the federal government may be the means of control.  The majority of Americans want confrontation.  They want federal power to be reined in.  The have come to realize that Uncle Sam has become our enemy.  Compromise with an enemy always leads to no good.  It is time that the politicians realize that and bring the enemy to its knees so that liberty may once again be the reality, rather than a sham that it has been in so many authoritarian states.  To do otherwise would be national suicide. 

---

[1] Barzun, J., From Dawn to Decadence, P. 555 – 556, Perennial / HarperCollins, 

Editor’s Note: Steven D. Laib is a consulting attorney living in Cypress, Texas, just northwest of Houston. He is a member of the California State Bar, and United States Supreme Court Bar. This article first appeared in Intellectual Conservative on 1/24/2011.