My Newswithviews Column, March 22 (‘Can We Compromise with the Left?)

I have long defined “bipartisan” as when the Stupid Party and the Evil Party agree to give the Evil Party some of what it wants now, and the rest later. It is responsible for our country’s slow drift into national senility. Or not so slow.

9 comments on “My Newswithviews Column, March 22 (‘Can We Compromise with the Left?)

  1. Well said, Lee. There are things which are right and things which are not right. Compromise what is right and you destroy the very foundations of civilization.

  2. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Lee, this is an absolutely on-the-mark article! It wouldn’t surprise me to know that The Holy Spirit was guiding this one. Exceptional! Thank you for this.

    Still down with whatever this yucky thing is, but prayers are surely helping me improve. And funeral arrangements and coordinating with all the family too.

    Sharing a beautiful miracle:

    (this just doesn’t happen by accident)

    1. Now that’s really something!
      And let’s have three cheers for the Humane Society, and Chloe’s other owners, who kept her safe for all those years, for this reunion.

  3. Want to see what it is like to reason with a Leftid? Watch Ann Coulter debate with a Liberal. You may need some Ibuprofen when the debate ends if you were trying to follow the logic of the Liberal.

  4. Brilliant article, Lee! And you’re right about the leftists’ idea of compromise; it always means to do things their way.

    One thing most leftists ignore or reject is the idea that people may have similar objectives but different ideas about what will accomplish those objectives. For example, two people may both want to help the poor, but one thinks the free market will help more, and the other thinks government assistance will help more. Similarly, no one wants schools to be shot up, but different people have different ideas about how to prevent the shootings. These are prudential judgments, but leftists tend to assume their judgments are the only possible ones and anyone who disagrees must hate the poor or want students to be murdered. Some compromises might be possible if leftists would only submit to a real discussion of the possible goods and evils of varying approaches, and, as Thomas Sowell always says, which tradeoffs are most acceptable. This, of course, will work only if the objectives really are the same, i.e., helping the poor, protecting innocent lives, and so on. If the objective on any side is power — or revolution — no discussion will be possible.

    However, there are some things that are evil in themselves and can’t be negotiated. If someone believes that an action is evil in itself, you can’t expect him to compromise without changing his first principles. This, too, might be done — I myself would very much want to be able to convince everyone of the truth of Christian doctrine — but since leftists tend not to want to discuss first principles on their own merits, all they can do is shout louder and seek punishment for anyone who opposes them. And then they claim that their opponents are “uncompromising.”

    1. I have become convinced that everything that leftids do has only one aim–to acquire raw power for themselves at everyone else’s expense. Am I judging them too harshly? It’s possible. I mean, I do know a few libs who are actually nice people who really think they’re trying to do good–but they’re not the ones who are running the show. So I make exceptions for them.

Leave a Reply