In today’s political climate, our representatives on either side of the aisle are finding less common ground than ever before, and have an even less desire to move toward it. Compromise may as well be a dirty word. With further debt ceiling talks looming large, concessions must likely be made by all. Here is how each of us feels about compromise.
AC Smith
The word “compromise” by my definition means to settle for less. When we settle for less, we may also put undue hardship on others, sometimes without thinking about it. We often do not notice immediate consequences and are therefore not concerned.
Now when I speak about this, I am not referring to the routine decisions that individuals make such as where to eat or what color to paint the walls. Those types of things are insignificant compared to what affects us as a population and our future generations.
Examples of what we should not compromise:
1) Our elected officials who represent us should not compromise when it comes to spending more money than what we have on hand, leaving a burden for someone else.
2) We the people should not compromise our freedoms by allowing the government to promote values that are different than our own.
3) We should not compromise our power as people by yielding our hard earned money to the government. If 10% is what God requires, the government should NEVER take or think they should deserve to take more than our God! Otherwise, we still have our feet on a plantation.
Where is the talk of freedom that I constantly heard about when I was young?
We need to just do the right things. Think about it! If we keep compromising, eventually things will get totally liberal and anything can go.
NO COMPROMISING!
Don’t you agree?
AC
Jamie Neben:
Rick Santorum was roundly criticized for admitting during a Republican primary debate that he voted for a bill that was against his beliefs. His reasoning was revealed as he stated “sometimes you take one for the team.” Although he regretted his decision, Santorum was only participating in what has been standard operating procedure since the birth of our nation. That is, he compromised.
Sometimes it’s true that you need to go along to get along. The alternative is that nothing gets done. The consequences of such a result could be catastrophic. The following are but a few examples of famous compromises in American history.
The United States of America may have been a failed experiment had the founding fathers not been able to settle their differences as they hammered out the constitution in the summer of 1787. The division of Congress and the creation of the electoral college were two products of compromise. Many of the other disagreements were between the northern and southern states and centered on slavery in terms of representation and perpetuation. Ultimately, the Three-Fifths Compromise was reached which counted each slave as less than one person, and The Slave Trade Compromise delayed the ban on importing new slaves until 1808. While such actions are unthinkable in today’s world, they more than likely saved our country at the time.
As slavery continued in the 19th century, the Missouri Compromise and Compromise of 1850, both formulated by Henry Clay (the “Great Compromiser”), were instrumental to preserving the union as new states were admitted.
A compromise even selected a president. In the aftermath of a contested election following the Civil War in which no candidate held a majority, Democratic Congressional leaders agreed to put Rutherford B. Hayes in office in return for Republicans withdrawing federal troops from the South and accepting Democratic governments in the last of the South’s “unredeemed” states.
More recently, the major tax structure overhaul known as the Tax Reform Act of 1986, was passed amid rare bipartisan support.
While many more instances can be found in a quick scan of a history textbook, the truth is that our nation’s business is rooted in compromise each passing day and with each important piece of legislation. Or at least that’s the way it should be. That’s the way it used to be until 2009, when Republicans decided they would oppose any bill sponsored by a Democrat, even if they were previously in favor of it (e.g. the individual mandate for health care).
A.C. Smith is not the only person with ideas about acceptable fiscal policy. His refusal to compromise on spending and taxes is right in line with the Tea Party platform. But when sticking to principle at all costs threatens to shut the country down, putting struggling individuals and families in danger of going hungry and receiving crucial benefits, their obstinance is no longer admirable.
I am not suggesting that compromise is desirable in every situation. We certainly shouldn’t look to make deals with our foreign enemies. However, as we elect our representatives and senators, and as they propose laws that affect all of us, we must constantly consider the best way to make progress.
Let’s move forward even if it’s one small step at a time. If we give a little, we’ll get a little. Over time, that will add up to a lot.
Upon reading both comments I agree with both to certain extent. Compromise is best, but it can’t always be negotiated, or should it be. In today’s congressional climate it appears that the party not in power has the strategy of either blocking or not considering anything on the President’s agenda or on the liberal side of the aisle. That is obstructionism and America has been down that road before.
As far as the debt is concerned, perhaps an opening round of compromise would be for the elected members of Congress, who are supposed to be serving as the voice of the people in their districts and states, to agree to contribute large chunks of their salaries and other income toward the debt or to needed programs and then the USA would be on more solid ground, financially. As stated, over time, if a little bit is given at a time it will add up to……more than we have now.
Lynne – thank you for your comment.
The donation of salaries would be a good symbolic gesture, although would have no impact on the debt. But to open in the spirit of compromise might set a tone that leads to meaningful results. Too often, talks end in compromise that merely prevents emergency and effectively kicks the can down the road to be argued over another time. A slightly watered-down version of a bill that serves as a solution is superior than failing to find any solution at all.
Interesting that Mr. Neben should cite slavery as an instance of reasonable compromise, as it was a compromise with evil which could only have been justified by legitimate doubt about the ability of the free states to survive, and the hideous repercussions of which were only mitigated by the most uncompromising measure possible.
Yguy – I am not suggesting whatsoever that any compromise regarding slavery was reasonable, but it was necessary if the union was to survive. There may not have been a United States to fall into civil war (and then come back together) if not for the compromises made during the Constitutional Convention or in the following years leading up to the war.
Please, Mr. Neben, there isn’t a doubt in my mind that if He were dumb enough to be interested, you’d jump at the chance to broker a compromise between God and the devil.
There is no reason on earth or in Heaven why God needs to compromise. But men do not possess divine capacity in any regard and we are all equal to one another (we’re all sinners). Therefore, we need to work things out amongst ourselves and we can’t always agree on everything. When people can’t agree on what’s right or what’s wrong….what are we to do? Not do anything?
Then you don’t believe we are created in His image.
Then we must be ruled by tyrants, since sinners will not be ruled by God.
The people who see the truth must seize the reins of power from those who see lies as truth.
When I speak of divine capacity, I refer to the qualities that man does not and cannot possess. Only God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent. Certain humans may think they can achieve or have achieved this, but we know that it is beyond human ability, at least so far.
I believe that we are created in His image, but I also know that we disobeyed Him and are therefore prone to sin. As the apostle Paul stated in Romans 7:21-25
21 I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love God’s law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power[b] within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? 25 Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God’s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.
So Paul considers himself to be a sinner, so does that mean he wants to be ruled by a tyrant? I think not. Or maybe you consider yourself to be superior to him. Are you not a sinner too?
Your thinking is dangerous in that you want to oppress (seize the reins)those who YOU and people like you consider to be liars. More people have been killed in the name of religion than any other reason. Jesus told us that his kingdom is not of this world. He is not concerned with earthly legal and government matters. He didn’t even adhere to established Jewish rituals. So stop trying to use Christianity to validate why you should be able to control others. You’re giving it and yourself a bad name. Your energy and intelligence can be better used to find ways to bring people together rather than drive them apart.
What is the purpose in doing so, seeing His Son was able, among other things, to raise people from the dead, and claimed His followers would be able to do greater things than He did? And bearing all that in mind, which do you figure is easier: to give sight to one blind from birth, or to see evil for what it is and testify to it?
Suuuure don’t look like it from here, pilgrim.
Sure, before he was reconciled to the Creator.
Who said anything about “wants”? Do you think people drink to excess because they want to end up with cirrhosis of the liver, or being smeared all over the highway?
Mr. Neben, I am perfectly aware of how anxious you are to lure me into a defensive posture by taking this to a personal level, but I could be Jeffrey Dahmer and everything I’m saying would be just as true. And you bloody well know it. 🙂
And yet He also told us the kingdom of Heaven is within us. Shall we then maintain the status quo by hiding our light under a bucket?
Do you really think such large scale sociological phenomena are anything but aggregate manifestations of the same dynamic at a family level? And did He not come to set sons against fathers and daughters against mothers?
You do realize that since He commanded others to do that very thing, you’re calling Him a flaming hypocrite, right?
Had the Allies not controlled the Axis powers, do you really imagine the latter would not have controlled the former?
Not sure how someone who makes no profession of Christianity can give it a bad name…but in any case, while those who think you know what good is will presumably find your pronouncement compelling, I am not among them.
So who was it who came to bring not peace but a sword, again?
I would not cite Jesus as an example of a man who had Godly powers, as he was no ordinary man and you know it. He is part of the holy trinity and came to us in human form just to save our sorry souls. But nobody has duplicated his abilities since then.
Paul had already converted to Christianity when he declared himself a sinner. He understood that we need Jesus precisely because we sin. If we didn’t, why would we need Him?
I am not calling anyone a hypocrite. Jesus stated, for example, that attending to poor and sick people was more important than observing the Sabbath. I’d say his own priority was not with man’s laws and customs.
Your example of the Allies and Axis powers was extreme. Of course, we need to stop those who would unjustly kill or imprison us. The problem lies with groups who want to wield ideological control based on their religious beliefs of what’s right and wrong. Swords can be used to cause bloodshed, or to prevent it. But if everyone left their weapons at home maybe there would be a lot less problems in the world.
You have a better example in mind?
Neither were the Apostles. Neither was the centurion. Neither was the repentant thief on the cross. What’s your point?
You may rest assured that I don’t know any such thing. What I do know is that He is not God, nor did He ever claim to be; and that the belief to the contrary is nectar to the souls of pseudo-Christians who can’t bear the idea of following His example, and have a perfect excuse not to if He is God.
From what?
Certainly that’s one way of reading it. Another is that he was remembering his former condition of enslavement – which, if he was in fact a beneficiary of salvation by the spirit of Christ, he had to have overcome, since he could hardly guide others to a destination to which he had never been.
You most certainly are.
Swell, but that’s not what you said to begin with.
No there wouldn’t. The problems would just look different. In fact, to most people, they wouldn’t look like problems at all, since most people are content to see evil as good.
Ok, that’s fine if you don’t believe in the father, the son, and the holy ghost as being all in one, and one in three. Some doctrines aren’t universal to all believers. However, you cannot say that I’m wrong about Jesus representing God in human form, just as I can’t say you’re wrong if you believe otherwise. Just as we can’t be conclusive about what Paul meant by his words.
I said that Jesus did not adhere to established Jewish rituals. I later gave you an example. What part of this was inconsistent?
I don’t believe most people would admit that they see evil as good. Perhaps we have differing opinions on what is evil vs. good, and if that’s the case, who gets to decide which is which? What examples can you provide that support your argument?
“Representing” is one thing, and “being” quite another.
We can say conclusively that if Paul wrote truthfully, nothing he said can be interpreted to the effect that those who are saved remain sinners.
Wrong question. What you should be asking is how that claim is consistent with, e.g., Luke 5:14 and Mt 23:23.
Of course they wouldn’t, even to themselves, because the very entity which makes them see evil as good also makes them oblivious to its influence over their thinking.
That was all decided before the creation of Adam, so the question is whether political control should be exercised by those who love the Decider or by those who love His mortal enemy.
If you’re asking for examples of people who see evil as good, just look at those who try to make Sandra Fluke out to be a stateswoman even as they pronounce Sarah Palin an airheaded slut, or who value the slavery of socialism over the liberty secured by a constitutional republic.
yguy….you have certainly provided some food for thought. I’m happy to have returned the favor, as I’m sure you’ve been busy pondering some of my well-constructed arguments as well. Reading between the lines, I think it’s fair to say that we agreed on most items. I’m glad that we were both able to maintain open minds throughout the dialogue.
The comments will be closed by week’s end, so if there’s anything else you’d like to inject that hasn’t been addressed, please feel free to have the last word. If it’s just to thank me for once again causing you to move closer to the truth, that’s kind of you, but not necessary. You’re very welcome 🙂
Mr. Neben, any proclivity I ever had for “pondering” threadbare liberal cliches is, you may rest assured, at least a decade behind me. The intellectual challenge here is not in finding fault with your arguments, but in exposing them in such a way that their intellectual and moral bankruptcy is clear to everyone.
Reading between the lines is evidently not your forte.
My mind is not open to nonsense. More’s the pity that you are not similarly “close-minded”.
Thanks, don’t mind if I do:
Enjoy. 🙂