People must be open-minded, reasonable, and must compromise; the political left elites admonish us. But they call for this as if it’s an unconditional equation when it’s far from it. I understand these attributes can be appropriate in certain circumstances, but compromise has no place when it comes to our principles and values—we should strive to never compromise them.
Such virtues may sound reasonable, but the context is the key. If some politician shows me he wants to transfer my wealth and/or reduce my liberty, where exactly should I compromise? Would it have been open-minded for Jefferson to have compromised in the Declaration of Independence? “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Existence, being somewhat Free, and the Pursuit of Reasonable Contentment?”
Politically active people, especially those on the far left, sometimes cite the “anger” of “Tea Party” participants, based not on their behavior, but on the bitingly sarcastic, and poignant signs many carry. Frankly, I’ve been amazed, pleasantly so, that the new Sons (and Daughters) of Liberty have been so civil and gracious in their dissent. Consider that the opposition has been attempting to alter the very course America’s Founders set into motion, and if they get their way, all American’s, as well as future generation’s, liberty suffers. How provocative is that?
When a political opponent wants to turn free people into part-time government slaves, are the people supposed to compromise? I suppose the transfer-wealth crowd has no problem with this concept; they actually believe a people can be “partially” free, and certainly not nearly as free as our Founders intended for us.
The Founders fought, risked, and died, as did so many who followed them, for my liberty. How can I, as an American, disrespect them by so frivolously allowing a progressive political movement to steal my birthright from me? I can’t.