Compromise is to be used when one possesses common ground with their opponent. If one does not have any such common ground, a place where beliefs overlap, there is no benefit to compromise. In fact, without common ground, compromise doesn’t even exist. Moreover, if finding common ground requires one to violate their beliefs, even in the slightest, what is the point? What is the cost, morally, strategically, and politically of compromising, when it forces us to bend what should otherwise be a straight principle?
According to The Washington Examiner:
“Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media’s exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention…”
Basically, liberals (mopey, and angry because the conservative presence online is crushing them) want to silence these conservative websites by banning them from endorsing political candidates, etc. It’s just another twist on the Fairness Doctrine.
In other news, Cumulus radio, who recently lost Hannity, and Rush (in NYC), is prepping a new host to add to their roster. According to Breitbart:
“Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), the Chair of the House, Intelligence Committee who will retire after his term ends to host a national radio show, said those who listen to Hannity and Limbaugh do not learn anything.”
Rogers slammed Hannity and Rush by claiming that his show will be more beneficial, and less divisive. He even called himself “a canary in a coal mine.” Rogers has been described by his (frighteningly liberal) colleague Luis Gutierrez as “a voice for moderation and consensus-building.” Basically, Rogers is what is commonly referred to as “moderate.”
These two stories tell a very scary tale. On one hand, we have liberals in our federal government wanting to silence anyone who would disagree with them, thus wresting control back into their grubby hands. On the other hand, we have a man who claims to be conservative mocking Hannity and Rush, both of whom have fought to keep conservatism relevant through thick and thin over the last two decades.
We are dealing with individuals who play dirty. Modern Democrats have never played fair, and they will do almost anything to gain the upper hand, including resorting to dictatorial measures. We have alleged conservatives, like Rogers, who actually believe that these dirty fighters can be reasoned with, that they can be compromised with. Expecting reason and compromise from the Left is like expecting Iran’s almighty Ahmadinejad to stop hating Jews. It’s not going to happen, and we must live in the reality in which we have been placed.
“Moderates” like Mike Rogers are harming conservatism. I would wager to say that moderates do more harm to conservatism than the Democrats. We cannot be deluded into a false compromise, in which the Democrats get everything they want, and we don’t get a morsel. We cannot compromise with people who are night to our day. We must instead focus on winning the hearts and minds of Americans by telling them what we really believe, then—surprise!—actually following through with our promises. We cannot water down our conservatism to suit the Democrats, who don’t dare water down their philosophy. We can only win if we show the country who we are, and how what we believe is better that what the Democrats offer, in every respect.
Mike Rogers and his ilk are fools. The Democrats are playing dirty, and the only way to combat their behavior is to change the game. Let’s stop cowering, and start fighting. Conservatism is the future