Compromising positions - and more politics as usual

More and more lately, we see establishment Republicans naively, innocently — perhaps foolishly? — lamenting the change in politics that has sent Dick Lugar and other longtime politicians to the sidelines.

Doesn’t it worry them that the other group mourning the loss of Lugar’s vote in the Senate is establishment Democrats? President Obama, for instance, put out a statement about Lugar, noting that “I found during my time in the Senate that he was often willing to reach across the aisle and get things done.”

Sounds good, but of course the things that Sen. Lugar got done by reaching across the aisle were good for Democrats and bad for the country. That’s why Democrats were very sad to see him go, and Indiana Republicans who knew him the best “not so much.”

But that didn’t stop pundits across the country from trying to make those Indiana voters look like ignorant hooligans who were intent on destroying the Constitution because of their strange belief system called “sticking to your principles.”

Editorial writers joined President Obama, Vice President Biden and the entire cast of the hit comedy called “MSNBC” in denouncing the voters of Indiana for rejecting a 35-year senator who had been caught with his principles down around his ankles one time too many.

In their minds, it didn’t matter how sullied his principles looked because the end result was compromise, and compromise — as we all know! — is a good thing.

Or is it?

I won’t bother to point out that when one is stuck in a compromising position, it is best for decent people to look the other way. Let’s not dwell on the fact that when security is compromised, it means that your whole operation is at risk. No, let’s just stick with the plain and simple fact of what compromise means in politics, and why it can be just as dangerous as surrender in war.

Politicians are not elected to go to Washington to make sure things get done, not matter how bad they are. They are elected because they told the voters what they believe, what they want to accomplish and what they think is best for the country — and the voters agreed with them.

It is therefore a slap in the face of the voters to go to Washington and vote for what you DON’T believe in, to accomplish things you DON’T really want, and to do what you think is WORST for the country.

Is that really hard to understand?

Apparently, it is — if you either are a career politician or you make your living by drinking from the trough of Kool-Aid that was formerly known as the U.S. Capitol.

Proponents of compromise make it out that compromise is a good thing simply because it assures that legislation will pass into law. They say, therefore, that anyone who compromised his principles is a statesman, and anyone who held to his principles is an obstructionist. And what’s really funny is, they say it with a straight face!

I am glad there was no one there in 1776 to convince the Continental Congress to compromise with King George. I am glad there was no one around in 1940 to convince Winston Churchill to compromise with Adolf Hitler and his invasion of barbarians. I am glad that when Jesus was offered a plea bargain by Pontius Pilate (“Just say you didn’t mean it, and all will be forgiven!”) he didn’t compromise his principles for a chance to be popular among the folks who specialized in crucifying their enemies.

Don’t let your enemy beat you by convincing you to surrender your honor in exchange for popularity. Popularity is ephemeral; honor is eternal. Doing the wrong thing may be popular, but it is never honorable. Doing the right thing may not be popular, but it is still the right thing, and that will never change.

 And the most important thing to remember is that if you compromise your principles for the sake of getting along, you will not only be kept from achieving what you want, but you will also be blamed for what you did get.

A case in point was seen this week on “The Daily Rundown” on MSNBC. Host Chuck Todd was defending President Obama against charges that he is too radical, and said that the Republicans dare not attack Obama and his connections to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright because the GOP was also connected to Obama. In fact, he tried to blame Republicans for the exorbitant spending of the last three years, thus clearing President Obama of any responsibility for the staggering national debt.

“It’s not clear where the proof is in the conspiracy theory that they’re trying to create about the president’s record in office — calling it radical — because when you look at health-care reform, the stimulus, even cap and trade, all of them of course stem from original compromise pieces of legislation that Republicans had put up, so that’s the risk here.”

In the famous words of the Rev. Wright, this is where the “chickens come home to roost” for Republicans caught in compromising positions. If you compromise your principles, you lose all credibility when you stand up for those principles. Get it?

Republicans who tried to find “common ground” with Democrats on the touchy-feely issue of health care, the emergency issue of a potential depression, and the fake issue of man-made global warming got nothing to show for it except the right to wear a T-shirt that says “I’m with stupid,” but has an arrow pointing straight up instead of over at the Democrats.

The so-called debt crisis is a perfect example of this. Speaker John Boehner didn’t invent the debt crisis — but last week he tried to talk about solving it, and was loudly booed by the pundits. Solving problems by taking painful action doesn’t fit the playbook for Washington, D.C., in an election year. Much better to compromise and kick the can down the road.

But a $16 trillion “can” doesn’t kick too easy — or too far.

Remember, it was just last summer when the nation realized it was approaching the pretend debt limit of $14.3 trillion. It is a pretend limit, because if it was a real limit, you would stop spending when you reach $14.3 trillion in debt. But what Congress did — by compromising — was raise the limit and keep spending money we don’t have. Hey, it worked for Greece!

So now we are once again approaching the new pretend debt limit of $16.4 trillion, and Boehner is trying to get someone to agree with him that we have a huge problem that won’t be solved by spending more money. Oh wait! How can spending more money be the solution? Spending more money is the PROBLEM.

But not to Chuck Todd, and President Obama and his spokesman Jay Carney. To them, the problem is that Boehner doesn’t want to “compromise.” Carney said that Boehner wants to “play chicken with the full faith and credit of the United States government,” whereas what he is supposed to do is just agree to find ways to keep spending more money.

Carney and Obama want us to believe that statesmen always look for common ground, but in reality what statesmen need to strive for is solid ground. The alternative is unthinkable.

When you are barreling down a steep incline and there is a cliff up ahead that overlooks a deep precipice, do yourself a favor and compromise between where you started and where you are headed by stepping on the brakes. That is compromise you can believe in.