Is it better to lose on principle or compromise your beliefs in order to win?
While perusing my favorite conservative blogs I came across a discussion at Conservative Hideout that I found extremely interesting and as I thought about this more and more I realized that I must write about it. In a post titled “RINO Alert: Who is John Huntsman?” Matt exposed Huntsman for a man who would makes John McCain appear to be a true conservative and not the RINO we all know he is.
The first comment on this post was made by a man named David Miller, who stated:
Matt, while I understand the consternation of many conservatives over people like Huntsman, I have to ask myself if the GOP is prepared to lose on principal, or would they like to be part of the solution.
Politics has always meant a degree of compromise. As it becomes more and more apparent that the demographics of winning will necessitate a change in philosophy, what is the GOP going to do?
It seems as if the primary voters are of one mind, and the general election voters of another.
If this is true, what is the solution for the GOP?
David is asking if the Republicans are prepared to lose on principle instead of trying to be part of the solution; what he is suggesting is that conservatives must compromise their beliefs in order to solve the nation’s problems. Once again it is the conservatives who are asked to move more towards the left because the left is unwilling to do precisely what David is asking the conservatives to do.
David went on to ask Matt, “what if that principle does not get you a seat at the table where you can influence policy? Is it then useful? How do affect change, if you are not part of the discussion?” Matt answered David by stating:
As 2009 and 2010 proved, having a seat is irrelevant. The Republicans were physically locked out of the talks on ObamaCare. The President refused to meet with them. They passed a law, “so we can see what is in it.”
And I chimed in much along the same lines as Matt:
I am also prepared to lose on principle, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. As for Dave’s question of not getting a seat at the table to affect policy I would say this: it really doesn’t matter any more because when Scott Brown was elected it should have shown Obama that the people did not want healthcare so what did he do? He rammed it through using political maneuvering and didn’t listen to us. Our seat at the table means nothing any more because we are being ignored, so it is time to make a principled stand and go down fighting.
David is suggesting that it would be better for the Republicans if they nominated a RINO who is more apt to negotiate with the liberals because they would have a voice in the debate, whereas if they were to lose because they nominated a conservative they would have no voice and would not be able to affect the debate in any way. But if in negotiating with the liberals it would mean throwing away what we believe in than what good does it serve to have that voice in the first place? If the person “representing” you in the discussion does not represent your views than you still have no voice in the debate. This is why I feel David’s argument is flawed.
I couldn’t disagree with David more and we have already seen this scenario in action: As I wrote in my comment above, Massachusetts elected Scott Brown last year and he is no true conservative–he may be considered a conservative in Massachusetts, but he would be considered a RINO in most other states, and in fact is the very same type of person that David is advocating we vote for in the presidential election–and they elected him so that they would have a voice on the healthcare reform debate and what happened? Barack Obama and the Democrats ignored the message that the people tried to send him and they shoved healthcare reform down out throats anyway. Republicans gained a voice in that debate and it meant absolutely nothing because the Democrats were not willing to compromise at all. If this is what is meant by having a voice at the table I am not interested in compromising what I believe in so that I can appear to be willing to negotiate while those on the other side of the aisle are not interested in compromise whatsoever.
Many people have stated that Barack Obama must be defeated at all costs and if that means compromising your beliefs it is something that needs to be done for the greater good. By this they mean that we should fall in line and vote for whoever comes out of the Republican primary regardless of whether or not that person holds the same beliefs as you. I am simply not willing to do this once again.
While I believe that defeating Barack Obama at all costs is paramount to the continuation of our republic, I am of the belief that anyone willing to compromise their principles and their beliefs is someone whose beliefs are not quite etched in stone. Defeating Barack Obama is critical to saving the republic, but if we do so at the expense of our principles we have lost something even greater.
If Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, or anyone else who does not hold the same values as I do is the nominee of the Republican party for president than I am fully prepared to go down fighting rather than to compromise what I believe in. I am ready to lose on principle because we have already seen what a seat at the table during negotiations is worth–nothing! They just keep playing us for fools and I am sick and tired of it. I will cast a third party vote even if that helps to get Barack Obama reelected because some things are more important than politics–your pride and your honor being among them.
America's Watchtower 
What I saw during the health care debate was that a seat at the table when you don’t control the House the Senate or the Presidency isn’t worth squat. In fact, you don’t get a seat. However, a seat at the table when you control the House and the Senate is worth a lot. A worst case scenario would be the return of one party rule on the left in 2012. A Republican control of the House and Senate would slow Progressive agendas.
LikeLike
While it is of the utmost import that Republicans win the House and the Senate it is even more important that conservatives win. If we have Republican majorities but they are filled with RINOs it make no difference because Barack Obama will end up getting what he wants.
LikeLike
I told Mr. Miller what I thought, as well. The days of politics as usual are long gone. The conservatives either win with a true conservative or America is lost. Period. There is no win for America with a RINO.
LikeLike
I saw your comment on that post as well and I agree with you. It is time to stand tall on principle and take this country back or go down fighting.
LikeLike
Personally I’m tired of caving in on the issues while left entrenches themselves. This has become their idea of compromise. As for my position and compromise, if you compromise with the current crop of Democrats in Washington, then you are compromising with people who believe in the principles of socialism and I for one cannot compromise with that because socialism is the antithesis of liberty and property rights. There is no room in my heart to compromise with people who believe that the government and not the people hold the answers to our problems. As for me I stand on principle and will not trade my principles for the WH, Congress, or control of the Senate. We will either stand for something or fall for anything. great post Steve.
LikeLike
John, I am pretty certain the Progressive movement feels just as strongly as you do. Simply insert a couple words here and there and your post could be passed for a one from the other side. W have allowed our system to be hijacked by gerrymandering and special interests so that most politicans are working to be re-elected in “safe” disctricts like Pelosi’s (name your own on the right).
My view, changing the crazyness is DC is like stopping a train or turning a 180 on an oil tanker. There has to be a plan to restore sanity. If 50% of voters don’t agree with one another it starts to become obvious that we are not changing stopping or course on a dime.
I want to alter course as you do. While I hopw Obama is not re-elected in 2012, we are not going to perish in 2014 if he is. However, if we don’t change things up on the hill by the 2016 elections (both houses of congress and POTUS) America as we know (with all her warts) may perish.
LikeLike
Thanks John, and you have nailed it! We must not compromise with socialists anymore because all we will get in return is more socialism and I believe we have too much already.
LikeLike
The big government conservatives are not very different from the big government liberals. (Both camps compete for corporate money.) Meanwhile, the libertarian wing of the Republican party gets labeled as right-wing extremist. Thus, many ordinary Republicans get hoodwinked into thinking their only viable choices for candidates are RINOs like John Huntsman.
Complicating the picture is the Ryan Medicare Reform Plan. Seniors who opposed ObamaCare, also wanted to have Medicare preserved in its current state. Now the aging baby boomers are divided into two camps (those born before 1957, and those born after.)
The irony with Paul Ryan is that he is not a libertarian conservative. He is a RINO, with a history of advocating big government spending — including the expansion of Medicare into Part D (i.e. the expensive prescription drug program for seniors). Now the RyanCare he is advocating has similarities to ObamaCare.
Paul Ryan needs to do a better job convincing me and others as to the feasibility of his Medicare reform. So far, I am skeptical. What private company would sell catastrophic or comprehensive insurance policies to old people, without it being horribly expensive? And how do we know that the Feds wouldn’t engage in corruption as to which insurance policies qualify for federal subsidies and which do not? The bribery going on in Congress is rampant. (Under RyanCare, this wouldn’t necessarily stop.)
Nevertheless, I commend Steve Dennis for his blog. He is an important voice in the New Hampshire community — and across the country. (My home is Arizona; I provided a link to his site from my own blog.)
LikeLike
Thanks for the kind words Kelly and I will be adding you to my blogroll as well very shortly.
LikeLike
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.” -Thomas Jefferson
LikeLike
Great quote Andy! All we need to do in questions of governance is look back towards the founders because all of the answers are there. Thoman Jefferson said in 16 words what I tried to say in 1,000.
LikeLike
It is interesting when people discuss the word compromise. As you suggested it often is interpreted as conservatives moving to the left. But from what I understand compromise to be it would include give and take by both parties. Otherwise if it is one sided it is more of a stubborn unwillingness to give up one’s principles.
I can have some sympathy for the Republicans though. I can’t imagine how hard it would be to be scoured all across the media like a Jim DeMint, or Sarah Palin. I think it takes a strong person who doesn’t mind all the negative press to stand for their principles.
I agree though, we need to elect someone who is willing to direct and control the conversation on key issues, and who demands compromise from the other side.
LikeLike
If we hadn’t had among our Framers brave men willing to compromise for what they saw as a greater good, this nation would never have been born. The nature of representation in the national government, the inclusion of slaves in a state’s population for purposes of apportioning representation in the House, the slave trade itself, the indirect election of the President and tariff issues were all major points of contention among the Framers.
Consider the issue of slavery – most of us today claim to be so unalterably opposed to it that it’s hard for us to imagine great men like Washington and Jefferson participating in such a revolting practice. And it’s easy to imagine, if the issue were still alive today, our modern punditry screeching against compromise and polarizing the people.
If today’s punditry had been active in the late 18th century, though, extremists on both sides would have vilified their opposition as traitors, as happens today, we might never have gotten beyond the Articles of Confederation, and today we might be two or more nations, speaking Japanese west of the Mississippi and German to its east.
It’s very easy to demagogue an honest compromise on issues into a compromise of one’s principles or even one’s integrity, the proof of which is evident when watching some of our modern-day bomb-throwers. Perhaps one of God’s blessings was to hold back letting us invent radio and other forms of mass communication at least until the basic concepts and precepts of self-government were firmly entrenched in our nation.
Self-government among 300 million people will always require compromise, much of it on issues of great import. If we lose the ability to compromise, government will either grind to a halt, or we’ll see the phenomenon of the dictatorship of the majority that our system was devised to avoid. Does anyone really think that a large American minority would sit still for long under such circumstances?
God Bless all those who gave their lives for our great nation, those who’ve served, and to those still under arms.
And may He bless us all, always.
TGY
LikeLike
“God Bless all those who gave their lives for our great nation, those who’ve served, and to those still under arms.”
Amen to that TGY!
While the founders were willing to compromise in order to form our government, the example of the “representation” of slave in the House, as you mentioned, being the most prominent example which could be given, they were much more unwilling to compromise their core beliefs once the constitition became the law of the land. Hamilton and Madison wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers and yet once the constitution was adopted they drifted apart on the issue of the federal government and the power entrusted to it–neither was willing to compromise.
Many of the founders died not talking to some of the other founders because they disagreed on principles. The greatest example of this is Jefferson and Adams, oonce great friends who didn’t talk to each other after Adam’s presidency until shortly before both died. Jefferson as VP actively worked to undermine John Adams’s presidency because he so opposed Adams’s vision of the federal government.
LikeLike
Compromise is what brought us to this point…..and we are NOT in a good place,philosophically,or otherwise.
The adversary never compromises-or they define it as we give up a bit less and they gain a bit less….yet they contine to progress while we contonue to finsh woth less than we had yesterday.
No compromise,time to nut up PR shut up…..and they would LOVE us to shut up….so come out of your corner and bust them up.
LikeLike
I agree! I would rather lose standing up for what I believe in than win by voting for someone who does not believe in what I believe in.
LikeLike
Never give up, never surrender, never compromise your beliefs…
As I tried to get across in 2008, when you vote for the lesser of the evils, what you have when ALL is said and done, is still evil… 2012 is shaping up to be another round of *hold your nose and vote*, and I refuse to do that…
I detest Barack Hussein Obama, it would make my day if the SOB fell D.E.A.D. dead, but what do we gain by jumping from the frying pan into the fire?
There has to be a TRUE Conservative out there, one person of principle, with dignity and intelligence… We either find that person and make them POTUS, or we try to elect a re-tread RINO and GIVE Obama a 2nd term…
In either case, we elect the best or America is OVER and DONE…
LikeLike
I held my nose and voted for John McCain because I realized what Barack Obama represented, but I am not going to do it again. If we do not nominate a candidate that I can back I will look elsewhere with my vote. Needless to say, that will help Barack Obama win re-election but so be it. At least I will not have compromised my core beliefs, and that is what is most important.
LikeLike
Steve, all the 3rd party votes put together wouldn’t have given McLame a win…
Won’t matter this time either… But I WILL vote my conscience, as always…
LikeLike
And so will I, let the chips fall where they may.
LikeLike
Compromise is often a useful tool, of course. As Georgia Yank points out, the Constitution is an excellent example of compromise.
But just because it’s a useful tool does not make it appropriate in every situation. Sometimes principle prevents it.
The left and the big-gov’t, go-along and get-along types trot out the word “compromise” everytime they want something. It’s purely an emotional device meant to make conservatives seem unreasonable.
They can stuff “compromise” in a sock.
What they really want us to compromise are the bedrock principles upon which this country was founded.
“It seems as if the primary voters are of one mind, and the general election voters of another.” So says that fella you quoted. Well he sure has the pulse of the voting public, what is he some kind of Frank Luntz?
Sounds like the usual narrative that the MSM continuously vomits in order to try and will it true.
And tell me, if the general voters are not of conservative mind, why do 65% of a recent poll support a Balanced Budget Amendment?
I’m right there with you, Stevie D. If GOP nominates Newt, Mitt, or some other RINO, I’ll be throwing my vote away on 3rd party. GOP does not get my vote on any RINO.
Is Pawlenty a RINO? I hadn’t researched him yet.
LikeLike
“What they really want us to compromise are the bedrock principles upon which this country was founded”
That sums it all up, while we may be able to compromise some ancillary positions, we cannot compromise the very principles that this country was founded on and that is what is at stake here.
Pawlenty once supported cap and trade and was open to healthcare mandates. He now is saying that he was wrong on cap and trade, but to me it seemed he held these positions because it was beneficial to him from a political standpoint, and now that he will benefit by opposing those positions he has changed his mind. To me this means that I cannot trust him because I want someone to stand up on principle and not on what he feels will help him in the election. We really don’t know which Pawlenty is the real Pawlenty.
LikeLike
Thx for the info on T-Paw, Stevie. I’ll be seein’ ya’ll in a couple weeks. Nice thread ya got going on here.
LikeLike
My pleasure, glad I could help. Happy moving.
LikeLike
You can compromise on where to eat or what color shirt to wear. You can not compromise on stealing something or not stealing something. It’s time to draw a line in the sand and not compromise on what has made and will make this country great again. Sound constitutional conservative principles founded with a spirit of rugged individualism. Sliding further into socialism is not something we can compromise on, ever.
LikeLike
I agree 100%, I have drawn the line in the sand and I think that there are many more out there who have done so also!
LikeLike
Well, thank God the Framers didn’t adopt that absolutist approach.
LikeLike
Republicans have consistently been moving to the left and we seem to get nothing in return and we are getting fed up. If that is absolutist so be it, but it is time to make a stand because we are reaching a critical point and something needs to change now.
LikeLike
When the Republicans do a poor job communicating their ideas to the American people, then they have no choice but to compromise (with the Democrats). Unfortunately, Paul Ryan had not yet convinced me to support his Medicare reform plan.
Karl Rove had written an article for “The Wall Street Journal” with the theme that “the Ryan Medicare plan needs a clearer and more populist defense.” Perhaps.
If the Republican Party can argue their position convincingly and with truthfulness — then no compromising would be needed. But if they connive behind closed doors, making secret deals with Democrats and corporate lobbyists — and if they simply employ the “divide and conquer” strategy to split the baby boomers into two opposing camps — the RINOs have screwed us again!
Please read Karl Rove’s article:
http://rove.com/articles/318
LikeLike
I agree! I want the Republican nominee to stand up and say “this is who I am” without regard for the potential fallout. This trying to play to both sides in order to get elected has to stop.
LikeLike
Thoughtful comments all the way around. It is why I read Steve and “America’s Watchtower” everyday. I don’t want to sound like the majority of our goals are not the same; they are. And it is not comfortable coming on here and going against the grain when the end game is mostly agreed on: a federal government that is an associate of ours, not our boss; and that our country is becoming devoid of conservative values.
Having said that I would like to suggest; we need to move the needle — one way.
I don’t presume to know how anyone else should vote. I do think that lightly supported candidates are generally from a defined constituency. A candidate like Perot resulted in 10 million new voters. He drew support from both sides – center left and center right.
In my view, if you are passionate about Conservative change then priority should be getting an R in the white house and a Republican controlled Senate. I am not sure 2012 should be about political principle or avoiding compromise. It is about WINNING; long term winning. You don’t lose principal when you move the needle toward your principles. In America 70% of citizens are center, center right and center left. They are _right there_ for the taking; waiting for you to influence them.
Progressives have taken a long term view of winning and they have been winning recently. But they are a small minority of political opinion. The center and the right have the numbers!
LikeLike
Please do not feel uncomfortable coming here to disagree on some issues, as long as the debate is civil I welcome it.
I understand what you are saying, that winnig is what is most important, but it has been so long since I have had a candidate that inspired me and I simply do not want to vote for the “lesser of two evils” again. I am beginning to feel that the real opportunity lies in the House and in the Senate, if Obama wins the presidency–which I feel is highly likely–then we can stop his agenda in the House and the Senate and I feel this is the most likely scenario.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments. I do believe real opportunity lies in winning the house and senate. I also want to point out that when I say “{winning is what counts” I mean winning within the rules and the integrity that aligns with our principles, not through groups like ACORN.
Having said that, we are not going see a militia raised or have an armed revolution. In 2012 and 2016 it is about winning over hearts and minds of the middle. We already have 10-15% on the far left and right who are unlikely to change. No matter how frustrated conservatives become the message should ring true … more true then the one coming from progressives.
LikeLike
I agree, winning is of the utmost import but what is even more important is the integrity of the system. We must win enough voters to our side legitimately, and I understand what you are saying about winning over the middle. This is why the Republicans always seem to nominate someone who isn’t a true conservative, it didn’t work with John McCain in 2008 and I don’t know if it can work this time so why not run a true conservative and let the chips fall where they may. While this is happening we can work on gaining the majority in the Senate so that even if Obama wins again we will be able to slow him down.
LikeLike
Think of American politics as being a battle being waged by three groups fighting against one another:
1) Libertarian Conservatives
2) Progressive Liberals
3) Corporate Elites
The corporate elites have succeeded to reign supreme over the other two factions by distracting the American people with issues of “left” versus “right.” As a consequence, we have big business in cahoots with big government — otherwise known as “corporate socialism.”
The progressive liberals hate the “corporatism” of government, but they love the socialism.
The libertarian conservatives hate the “socialism” of government, but they love the capitalism.
So basically, the progressives and the libertarians have a common enemy — corporate fascism. But the progressives believe the solution is more government (i.e. “democratic socialism.”) Whereas the libertarians believe the solution is less government — thus depriving the corporate behemoth its partner in crime.
LikeLike
The money now flowing into the system on both sides by corperations, unions, and special interest groups is what is actually running this country, Neither side can make a move without worrying about how these groups will react, meanwhile the American people are the ones who suffer for this.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. We simply cannot go back to RINOs for our elected officials. We are so close to going off the cliff, that we can’t risk voting for someone that will continue driving for it. It’s that simple.
LikeLike
I agree we are close to going over the cliff. But how does one reconcile voting for a candidate like Cain (who I find very interesting) IF (I said if) it turns out he not electable? Given how close we are to the cliff, why wouldn’t you do everything possible to prevent the re-election of Obama and at the same time take control of the senate?
I am reminded of the dilemma many of us may face someday: mom or dad asks that we not keep them alive if their quality of life goes down and a decision has to be made. The order is “please do not resuscitate”. We say “okay”. Then mom or dad has a stroke but the surgeon says “we can save him/her and there is a good chance they will survive with high quality of life”. Do you let them die or do you take the doctor’s advice and intervene. Is it your selfishness and the desire to have them alive that prevents you from letting them go? Or are you serving them through your wisdom, understanding that they may choose to fight on if you could ask them? Or do you end their life? Remember, when you let them go, you are still here. And if they are alive with low quality of life, you are still here. How can you be sure what they want or what you should do? How can you be sure what is best?
My brother is a retired Rear Admiral and flew in F-14s. He served in the Persian Gulf as an EO, a CO and eventually as commander of air wing fourteen after initiating classes at War College teaching naval officers leadership. He told me an interesting story to help illustrate this point. It was about a gung-ho fighter pilot who swore he would never be taken alive if shot down. He wore handguns and bullets and was ready to fight to the death on foot if it came to that. When he was shot out of the sky he managed to eject and open his shoot. As he floated to earth he saw the enemy on the ground rushing to his landing spot; dozens of them with rifles pointed his way. He started throwing his guns and bullets away as fast as possible and raised his hands hoping to be taken prisoner of war over being shot to death. His will to survive overriding his earlier bravado.
2012 is not the end of the world. It’s just close. My suggestion: secure power; then use influence on elected officials to sway policy. Finally, gain additional power. In my view, this is not a time to go out on principle. Rather, it is a time to reorganize so that you can use your principles effectively going forward.
LikeLike
You make a compelling agument KP, but I just can’t get passed the fact that a RINO is not much better than Barack Obama–sure it would be a little better, but if the people are given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat-lite, they are going to chose the Democrat. We saw this in 2010, the only chance Republicans have to offer a true difference would be to nominate a conservative. I believe that the 2012 elections are a foregone conclusion and Barack Obama will be re-elected so why not stand on principle now? What do we have to lose at this point?
As we have both alluded to in previous comments, the true battle lies within the House and the Senate, we can stand on principle in the presidential election and polse, but if we capture the Senate we will ultimately be the winners, and I think that fight is more realistic.
LikeLike
You are welcome Matt, that comment by David on your post really got me thinking because I have been pondering this question for awhile now. In my opinion voting for a RINO is only a slightly better option than voting for Obama and the difference is so negligible that I am willing to look elsewhere on principle.
LikeLike
You make good points above, Steve. We agree more than we vary in opinion.
Aloww me to provide evidence of that:
(1) it’s too early to abandon hope of winning the White House
(2) a republican who is not a democrat-lite can win the White House.
Keep On Truckin’ …
LikeLike
I think that you are right on both counts, I believe a conservative can win if we run one and I still think that we can win the White House, but I do believe it is a very tall task and the odds are against us.
LikeLike
How can a true conservative beat both the RINOs and the Democrats on the issue of healthcare reform?
1) Convince Americans that increased competition among the healthcare providers would lower costs for the healthcare consumer.
2) Show to the voters how ObamaCare merely increases the demand for healthcare consumption (via the mandate) without increasing the supply of providers. This is a recipe for worsening price inflation.
3) Go to liberal websites and study their ideas. Otherwise, we won’t be able to counterattack effectively.
**********************************************************************
Please read my latest post:
http://kellyrek.blogspot.com/2011/05/ryancare-is-corporate-welfare.html
Please study how the liberals think. Visit the link below … and read the article plus the comments in the discussion thread. Pay close attention to the arguments being made by the “Democrats” on Medicare and Medicaid. (Be aware that whenever they use the acronym ACA, it is referring to the “Affordable Care Act” — otherwise known as ObamaCare.)
http://www.frumforum.com/ryans-budget-brings-palin-back-in-the-game
LikeLike
I think that you have a great plan of attack and I will be reading the link you provided.
LikeLike
Hi, through links I found your site and find it interesting. I am a Brit and thus please take note that I do not live in your country and am seeing it from foreign soil – so to speak.
I commend the concept of principles and the quote about standing strong like a rock is commendable. From the view of my pirch I see no candidate capable of winning the election except Romney because the maths says that the “popular vote” or what some now call “middle-America” seeks someone who not only looks reasonable and offers what they want to hear but also someone who actually “represents America”, and in that they mean can deal with the other side – be it Republicans or Democrats. Now having said that, what we see from over here is that the Republican Movement has leaned a way bit to far to the right than normal and that the subject has been taken over by ultra-conservatives and frankly ultra-nationalists. That the last thing offered is bi-partisanship and that it does not represent what ultimately is still wanted by “middle-America” whom seek someone more central.
So the question is two fold I guess from my part to you all:
Is it a demand for a Candidate becoming a bit left, of is it actually asking for a Candidate to correct his or her rather extreme right-sided angle back to a more strong and traditional right lean?
Secondly, is such a correction actually taking you into “the left” and is it thus really a breaking of principles? In other words, would you have considered conservative heros like Reagan if they were here now, a bit to the left? He was very much bi-partisan, his fiscal policies were more centrist than most would consider correct for these days.
In fact what would have your Founding Fathers thought of today”s GOP and what is actuallly to the left of centre?? Would they not have perhaps said that times change and so do needs and circumstances?
I am a centre-left fee-paying British Conservative Party member and a Barrister (lawyer to you) and a proud resident of Gibraltar
D Charles QC
LikeLike
Thanks for stopping by and these are great questions. I do not believe that the Republican party as a whole has moved toward the extreme right, but I do believe the Democrats and the president have moved toward the extreme left and this needs to be corrected. I do not believe the Republicans are simply correcting from being to extremist because I think our elected officials are already in the middle and are moving even more to the left–an example would be supporting amnesty for illegal aliens.
In my opinion many of the founders would consider themselves libertarians and as such would be disgusted by the government’s involvement in healthcare.
LikeLike
I agree — I think most of the Framers would have been justifiably outraged had government gotten involved in healthcare back then.
They would probably have been similarly outraged if there’d been a minimum wage, safety and health regulations in the workplace, or regulations on food processors to ensure a healthy and disease-free supply of food for the people of the nation. These facts, though, aren’t sufficient reason to repeal those measures.
Remember that at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, hanging was a suitable punishment for horse theft, and it continued that way for well over a century. Yet without any Constitutional amendment, such a punishment for that crime became unconstitutional. If you didn’t like your wage, you could more easily find other employment or leave the formal economy altogether. Neither option today is nearly as possible as it was back then. We force people to be part of the formal economy, insisting that they participate according to sometimes arbitrary rules.
The Constitution was written to be timeless so that amendments wouldn’t be necessary for every little advancement in technology. Nevertheless, the changing nature of society has inevitably changed the core meaning of at least some of the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment, is a perfect example.
I think that one of the reasons so many have changed their view of healthcare is that it’s become such a big business. The practice of medicine in the Framers’ day wasn’t a huge, for-profit enterprise that comprised close to 20% of the national economy.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Steve,
At the FrumForum website, a commenter had written …
“I don’t think the Republican ideology gives a hang about poor children, children with disabilities, children with autism, elderly Americans who need nursing homes, etc…. ”
My response was …
When we as American citizens are no longer charitable to one another, it then becomes an invitation for government socialism to fill the void.
The regime in Cuba cares “about the poor children, children with disabilities, children with autism, elderly [Cubans] who need nursing homes, etc…” In that society, there is no need for churches, there is no need for charitable organizations, there is no need for individuals to help one another — there is no need for any of those voluntary entities to even exist! Instead, we have the all powerful, all-nurturing Cuban government — providing cradle to grave care for the entire populace.
A much better way for affordable access to care entails the combination of charity and **real** capitalism — not the phony corporatism being espoused by the elites in Washington D.C.
The oligarchic healthcare providers are using ObamaCare as a means to entrench their monopoly status in the marketplace. This is bad for the consumer, it is bad for the taxpayer, and it is especially bad for the poor. Healthcare costs will continue to escalate.
I actually disagree with Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan — which is a form of corporate welfare. It is a program to funnel taxpayers’ money into the pockets of millionaire insurance executives.
For for more information, visit the links below:
http://kellyrek.blogspot.com/2011/05/ryancare-is-corporate-welfare.html
http://kellyrek.blogspot.com/2011/05/oligopolies-of-education-and-healthcare.html
*************************************************************
Original post … http://www.frumforum.com/ryans-budget-brings-palin-back-in-the-game#comment-300361
LikeLike
“When we as American citizens are no longer charitable to one another, it then becomes an invitation for government socialism to fill the void.”
An excellent point, the government sees what they consider a void and they look to step in and fill that void with more government.
LikeLike
COMPROMISE IS PLANNED FAILURE (TM). Never compromising is having the will to be fearless and relentless, while remaining confident and true to yourself, no matter what the obstacles.
LikeLike
Compromise is the way our great nation came into being – the Framers made compromises great and small because they felt that their vision of the USA was greater than those issues that divided them. They then structured a government that essentially requires constant compromise to function.
Without compromise, the USA would never have come into being.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike