Compromise? Bi-Partisanship? What about the truth?

Julian Laws

There are a few phrases employed in the rhetoric of political gamesmanship that should be brought under scrutiny. They are usually uttered by members of the media or thrown out during debates. Some politicians feel they have to use them in order to get elected. To me they are an annoyance and I am not interested in any politician that would buy into what they suggest. The phrases are: reach across the aisle, bi-partisan, work with Democrats/Republicans to come to an agreement, and compromise. “But these are good things,” you say. Well, let’s see. Let’s pretend that in my state’s senate election that I voted for the candidate that was the best person for the job (pretending, because the best person for the job probably wasn’t an option.). He wins. He has sound economic understanding, a solid constitutional foundation, I agreed with the changes he wants to make and the ideas he wants to work for. He goes to Washington and presents a bill that he promised to present. This promise is one of the factors that caused me to vote for him. He did the research, understands what it means for American freedom, based his policy on facts and proven economic principles. In every way I feel that this bill is right, that it will benefit every American citizen and that it is exactly what our country needs. Yet some on the other side of the aisle aren’t sold on it, they want to compromise and come to an understanding. Why would I want my representative to compromise?

To compromise means to take good legislation and water it down. It dilutes the impact of the measure. It takes good policy and makes it bad. It makes right wrong. Simply, it makes 2+2 equal 3.5. As simple as this little equation is as an example. . . it works. There are politicians and pundits who have policy that is wrong on every level. It is wrong in the face of historical evidence, it is wrong in its numbers and result. It is wrong in its assertion that human beings won’t change their behaviors. It is told to the American people with straight faces and laced with lies, misdirection and false assertions that would take months to refute. It is wrong in its motivation, execution and consequences. It is 2+2 =3. These are the people who want to compromise. Some of them are called economists. All of them are called experts. Read rest of column here: News New Mexico

Compromise? Bi-Partisanship? What about the truth?