Rubio on Compromise and Choice
August 4, 2011
RUSH: Marco Rubio makes a great point. He took to the Senate floor, gave an interesting ten-minute speech on the two competing economic visions that divide us. And rather than blaming politicians in Washington for the division, he said the problems run much deeper than just the politicians in Washington. He said, "Washington is divided because America is divided on this point." He's right.
John McCormack, writing in the Weekly Standard, says, "He was civil and fair-minded toward his opponents. But he didn't promise to bring us all together with a 'balanced approach' or by being a 'uniter, not a divider.' He didn't promise to turn our blue states and red states into one nation of purply goodness. He argued we may not find compromise between the two visions. We may have to choose one or the other," and therein lies the brilliance.
"The debate, Rubio continued, is between those who believe the government's job is to promote 'economic justice,'" i.e., the redistribution of wealth, that the government's job is to determine the equality of outcomes in people's lives, "and those who believe the government's job is to promote 'economic opportunity.' 'One is not more moral than the other,' Rubio said of the competing views. 'They are two very different visions of the role of government in America. But it lies at the heart of the debate that we're having as a nation.'" By the way, this is the only thing I will disagree with. I do think that one is more moral than the other. I do not think that there is any moral superiority in economic justice, 'cause that's not what the term means. Economic justice does not mean fairness and equality for everybody, it's not what it means.
Economic justice means socialism or communism or Marxism, and that is not moral. In fact, as Ronaldus Magnus said, "Even if we do nothing, the Soviet Union eventually will implode. It'll crush in on itself because of its own immorality." He said, "We can't wait for that to happen because they can do a whole lot of damage before that eventually happens to them." But I do think there is a moral superiority to economic opportunity, because where is the morality in the idea that the purpose of a government is to determine who ends up with what? That's not moral to me, so I respectfully disagree with Senator Rubio. I think one is more moral than the other.
But when he got to the point of discussing the solution to all this, he said, "Ultimately, we may find that between these two points there may not be a middle ground. And that, in fact, as a nation and as a people, we must decide what we want the role of government to be in America, moving forward." That there may not be any way to compromise, that we're going to have to choose one or the other. And he's dead-on right. That's why the silly notion of compromise, Obama and the Democrats demanding compromise, all that means is that we give up our core beliefs, and the differences are too striking.
How do you compromise with something that's wrong? How do you compromise, say, with evil, in the case of the Middle East peace process and the Israelis? Where is the compromise with people who want you exterminated? Where is the compromise with people who would just as soon run you into the Mediterranean Sea and drown you? Where is the compromise there? Peace will come in the Middle East when one of those two sides loses, or, put the other way, when one of those two sides wins, and it's the same thing here in the United States. The two competing visions are so different from one another, to strikingly different, so stark in their differences, that there is no compromise. I know a lot of American people get nervous hearing that. They want to compromise, especially women. "Oh, God, no, can we all just get along? I hate the fighting."
Somebody's gonna have to win and somebody's going to have to prevail, and that's what elections are about, and we elect people, we send them to Washington to defeat the ideas of our opponents because we think those ideas not only are destroying the country, we also think they're a little bit immoral. So there is no compromise. Whenever there's a compromise on something like this when the differences are this stark, it isn't helpful, and it isn't good. You know, the White House wanted the market to tank before there was a deal. CNBC had the story, Washington annoyed at Wall Street's failure to panic, before the deal was done.
Remember that? And so now Wall Street is panicking. He said, "Frankly a bit of panic would be very helpful for this right now." Where's the compromise with people who think that way? Where is the compromise with people like Obama and the Democrats who want Wall Street to panic? "Okay, we'll compromise: A little bit of panic. Okay, we'll agree to a little bit of panic." Well, this wasn't supposed to happen. The Wizards of Smart told us that if we got a deal and didn't default, that everything would be fine -- that if we defaulted the market would plunge and interest rates would go up and (choking). It's just the exact opposite of what the wizards of smart told us. Now, Zsa Zsa is right: Obama has had 37 fundraisers.
At this point in his first term, George W. Bush had held seven. Bill Clinton had held only five. You look at slavery. Where's the compromise there? I mean, the people in that debate who believed in slavery and those who didn't, nobody thought this could be settled by splitting the difference. This notion of "compromise" on the differences here that we're talking about are indeed stark. Economic justice. No matter how they try to dress it up, economic justice, or social justice really just boils down to Democrats taking the money of people who won't vote for 'em and giving it to people who will. That's what economic justice is and that's why I disagree with Rubio. I think it is less moral than my side.