I don't see Democrats "compromise" very often on their principles. Sure, there's a lot you can and should compromise - but your core principles? That of smaller government that doesn't spend beyond it's means? That of a government that obeys the laws already on the books instead of making new ones that won't be obeyed either? That of a government that doesn't infringe our rights which are endowed by our creator? That of protecting our Constitution? That of rewarding good behaviour such as working, saving and producing?
It's the compromising of our principles by the GOPe that have brought us to today. They enabled the election of Barack Obama, their compromises enabled the progressives to run roughshod over our society and system of checks and balances. What is it going to take to make the rest of you as mad as some of us already are?
You haven't? Democrats wanted a single-payor government-only health care system, but didn't get it; they had to compromise on that to get what they got, even if that compromise was simply within their own party.
And that, my friend, should be lesson #1 to all republicans/conservatives right now - work out a healthy compromise within your own ranks, or you'll get nothing from the other side.
And, quite frankly, republicans have lost because they've done an utterly miserable job at explaining in plain English to the uncommitted, Ms. and Mr. Sixpack, why what they want to do will be good for America. Mostly what I hear from republicans, especially conservatives, is they hate this, they don't like that, and they're going to get rid of it all when they get into power. I almost never hear them propose workable alternatives to replace what they wish to extirpate. And quite frankly, some of the republican positions require a good explanation because some of them - like cutting entitlements - are counterintuitive. How do you explain to someone who's unemployed that it'll be good for them if we get rid of unemployment compensation? How do you tell someone who depends on subsidized housing that it'll be good for them if we get rid of social welfare entitlements, including subsidized housing?
When someone like that listens to most of what comes from the republicans, he or she is not being unreasonable if he/she comes away with the impression - mistaken as it might be - that the republicans will simply uproot what they depend on immediately and will put nothing in its place. For someone who depends on subsidized housing, that raises the fear - a fear that the democrats are only too happy to stoke - that if a republican majority is elected, they and their possessions will be dumped on the curb the day after. That's an extremely scary proposition to someone who has grown dependent on subsidized housing. And, quite frankly, who can blame them? If the choices presented are (a) stay in the house you have, or (b) get chucked to the curb, which would you pick? Anyone who says they'd choose (b) is simply lying.
And please don't bring out this little example or that little example, as "proof" that conservatives have really made an effort to put forth alternatives, as refutation of my argument. What I'm talking about is a return to the Reaganesque ability to paint a positive future for people and to convince them that you care about them, that you can make it possible for them to reach that future, and that you won't leave the poorest of them behind.
But that's not what I hear mostly coming from conservatives and republicans. I hear demonization of the poor as slackers, loafers, idlers who mooch off the system, and categorical demands for them to be dropped like hot potatoes from government entitlements. And that just feeds right into the false myths put out by the democrats because all they have to do is point to what's coming from the republicans themselves and say "look, see, they really are going to put you out on the street if you vote for them."
