Punchinello’s Chronicles

October 5, 2008

Compromise? On What Basis?

Filed under: Butterfly Wings — Punchinello @ 10:00 am
Tags: , , ,

We’ve reached a point in American history where the philosophy of relativism has at last reached critical mass. Hundreds of thousands of people with a ballot in hand believe that compromise and getting along, keeping an open mind and being “objective” are the better way to go, where it comes to the future of this country. They have no clue or concept what they mean by the word “objective” other than it’s a synonym for compromise.

Let’s say that you’re offered the choice between being murdered or raped (an actual set of options by murderous thugs in Europe). Which would you choose? Neither? Of course. So what about a compromise?

The real problem here is that several generations now have grown up being educated by the modern American educational system. Defined by so-called progressive thinkers (aka liberals), these people have been taught that no absolutes can exist, nothing is permanent, nothing is certain, and the reasoning mind is the least reliable of all cognitive methods.

With only feelings, based on whatever chemicals are blowing through the bloodstream, these so-called “undecideds” can’t have a position. Chemistry only lasts at the longest about three days, after which whatever new feelings wander along will be the deciding force. (This probably is why McCain will make a final push only 72 hours prior to the election polling.)

Decisions based on principles rarely offer all that much room to compromise. When the principles at stake are fundamental, such as personal liberties, economic responsibility, welfare systems, and so forth, there’s practically no room at all for compromise.

Modern education has taught entire generations that there’s always room for compromise. Nothing is worth fighting for. Why go to Iraq? Who cares, it’s just a feeling on the part of some unknown number of people. There’s no such thing as the principle of freedom, self-government, slavery, totalitarianism, or anything at all.

Is there a God? Nobody knows, it depends what the feelings are at any given moment. There certainly isn’t any kind of basic “good” and “bad,” because there’s no such thing as an objective morality. No objective values exist other than the supposed value of having no values — otherwise known as compromise. Ethical relativism tells these people that everyone is good in some way, everyone is “redeemable.”

The great tragedy looming on our horizon as a nation is that enough of these unprincipled, amoral people will eventually put the future of the country on hold. They want a “wait and see” situation, waiting to see if irrevocable consequences really and truly are irrevocable. They want “change” from whatever makes them feel bad (or worse, makes people they see on TV feel badly). With no clue what that change would be, mean, or how it would be defined, it means nothing.

Legitimate compromise can only take place between two principled position. Both sides must have clear values, and those values must have a basic framework of general agreement. Today’s liberalism has no common framework whatsoever with modern conservative values. There’s no such thing as “neo-conservatism,” and the other nonsense names the media has come up with.

Conservative thought is founded on capitalism, objective values, and factual reality. Liberalism (progressive thought) is founded on romanticism, socialism, and perceived reality. The two are diametrically opposed with no room at all for compromise.



  1. Sorry about that. I had posted a comment before and it didn’t go through. Anyhow, I enjoy reading your blog because you discuss things objectively. But at the same time, you seem to lean fairly heavily against liberalism as if it doesn’t have positive virtues. I grew up in rural Tennessee. I now live in the SF Bay Area of California- the most liberal place on the planet. I’ve seen both extremes. I’ve witnessed people in both places who dislike people with different religions, different skin colors, and basically anything different. I’ve also been around people- in both places as well- who dislike whoever happens to be president, any sort of religious doctrine, or any sort of organized unity.

    What’s missing is a middle ground. In other words, we are now a extreme nation of two extreme parties. The Republican party seems to grow more conservative with every passing generation. The Democratic more Liberal. I firmly dislike religious preference being injected into politics. I also dislike bringing culture warfare to the table. This accomplished nothing. In other words, we need a third party. A moderate party that isn’t extreme one way or another and focuses on the importance of running the country.

    But that’s not the case now. Thus the election has to be looked at via reason. This is my opinion, but after watching the VP debates, its clear that Mrs Palin is clueless about international affairs. The fact that Mccain is an older gentleman has me deeply concerned that is the unspeakable happened, the country would be placed in the hands of a tragically misinformed woman. This would be dangerous.

    Secondly, its extremely clear that we function on a global scale. I’m watching the stock ticker right now. The market is down more than 400 points, right after the massive 700 Bn. bailout. Why? Because Europe is failing. We are tied together. That brings me to my next point which is that the international community unquestionably views Mr. Mccain as anything but a Maverick and everything that George Bush represents. In other words, in a world where positive international relations are an absolute necessity, Mccain would not be very efficient in leveraging and improving our ties. I realize that this statement might be unfair. Mr. Obama makes a statement. That is that even though we currently have the most unpopular president in US history at the helm, we can in fact elect someone who is totally opposite and represents that we can still grow as a country versus stew in stagnation and “sameness”

    I’m not making an argument over liberal or conservative values. I’m arguing that we are at a pivotal time in our history and cannot afford to elect another leader who will more than likely continue business as usual and secondly, do so with a dangerously inept VP.

    Comment by bob — October 6, 2008 @ 10:33 am | Reply

  2. I am a conservative and hold that liberalism is the remaining vestige of socialism, to be wiped out totally. Liberalism has no redeeming value at all, which is why it has failed or is failing everywhere else in the world. Only in America is liberalism an option many people actually think would work. Probably because we’ve had an entire history of freedom and can’t believe we could lose it.

    Conservative thought is entirely separate from political party platforms. There can be conservative Democrats or conservative Republicans (liberals too). Only the media continues to try and link or define conservatives to Republicans or religious fundamentalism.

    This “middle ground” you speak of doesn’t exist. Not when it refers to the difference between conservative thought and socialism. Instead, we need a Congress restrained by any kind of reality. One option would be to return to a gold standard, ending our “fiat money” with no limits to spending.

    It really isn’t all that interesting what Europe thinks about us. Yes, they’re entirely linked with us, as are we with them. But the rest of the world has chosen to let America handle problems of violence and aggression, sitting out and spending money only on their own economies. With little military power to back up their political decisions, they’re not all that effective.

    John McCain is not in any way a conservative. He’s a Republican, much like George Bush. Whether we get McCain or Obama doesn’t really matter much, since both are offering plans to seriously damage or wreck the structure of the country. Sarah Palin is a conservative, and it doesn’t matter all that much what her in-depth experience is with international anything. She’ll have advisors for that.

    Whichever leader we elect in 2008, neither of them is what we need. The result likely will be a plunge into the cold waters of harsh reality. We’ve had chance after chance since Jimmy Carter to do something real about fixing the country, and we’ve ignored every opportunity. Just like the banking “crisis,” the many other crises that have been building now for 50 years will reach their critical mass.

    No arguments that I’ve heard even remotely suggest why Ms. Palin is so “inept.” Calling her so doesn’t mean anything. Given parity between hers and Obama’s experience, I’d rather have someone with actual values than someone who stands for nothing. It’s not even a choice of the better of two “evils.” Right now, we have no leadership at all in Congress. Following this election, we still will have no leadership.

    Comment by Punchinello — October 6, 2008 @ 2:19 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: