Categorized | OpEd, Tea Party

Compromise and the Grassroots

When is uncompromising principle applied absolutely a poor political strategy?

For both the brains and brawn of the freedom movement, the term “compromise” holds the most bitter taste. It’s the word we hear every time a politician explains to us why he or she didn’t do the right thing. It’s a white flag and it’s an excuse. So remarkably frequent are the compromises of our so-called conservative representatives in Washington D.C. and Richmond, that our patience for “strategic” compromise is, well, nonexistent.

t1larg.teaparty.giThat being the case, we have become paranoid, not merely of the promise of compromise, but of the mere suggestion of its possibility. We rake our delegates and Congressmen over the coals for every hint of a principle-defection. This makes us, me included (certainly me included!) quite annoying to our delegates and Senators and Congressmen. Our elected Representatives do have to operate in the most corrupt environments, where more than half of every choice before them, between each possibility, carries with it the taint of the criminal.

And so the Grassroots and our elected (even the ones WE Elected) have a difficult relationship.

In our defense:

First, I didn’t make politicians corrupt. I didn’t have a voice or a say or a seat at the table when our government decided to sell out the American People for power, for wealth, and on behalf of their corporate benefactors or their obedient subservients. Secondly, we have been lied to, betrayed, manipulated, and attacked by these powerful so-called “conservative” Republicans. Why should the grassroots trust anyone in government? Why should the grassroots tolerate their elected getting squishy, murky, and wrapped up in the lose-lose politics of our day?

In their defense:

There is no Constitutional Republic, no freedom, no civil society, no justice, no morality, or quality in American Government. If you sent the most rabidly uncompromising amongst us into the filth that is our government, we could essentially vote on nothing. Each bill is crafted wherein whatever we do, we lose. That’s called tyranny and that is what we have today. So, we could vote against every perfunctory bill and fight like hell against every dangerous one, but what do we achieve?

If we are to be uncompromising bastions of liberty and constitutional law, then we can have no place in modern America, except to condemn it or to literally go to war for its soul.

If we are going to fight the system, if we think there is a chance, the slightest reason to hope that we can return liberty to this country, peacefully and through what processes remain to us, then we have to fight and to fight smart. It is still like a war. We’ll lose battles to win the war. We’ll do unspeakable things, see unspeakable things, in the course of fighting for our freedom; but we will have to accept loss. We’ll have to accept compromise as a tactic. We’ll have to lose battles in order to win battles. We’ll compromise our pawns to acquire their Queen. We’ll compromise our Rooks to checkmate their King. We’ll lose our right to our impeccable character.

But who then measures success? How much compromise is necessary? How do we know when our politicians are compromising smartly or compromising our future freedom? If compromise is the name of the game, if embracing dishonest laws to somehow strike a bargain for an honest one is necessary, then how can we ever escape that cycle? How has that cycle helped us in the past?

This is the impossible choice before us. Those who hope that we can work with our government to save our liberties will inevitably embrace compromise, and so continue the cycle which has brought us to this place today. Those who do not believe this is possible, well, we may need to recognize that we have no cards, we’ve already lost, and so what’s the point?

Is there a middle ground? That’s what we have to discover. What’s the point of a grassroots liberty movement if we are unwilling to fight the enemy on the battlefield they’ve chosen? What’s the point of strategic compromise if we cannot measure its’ results? These are the most important questions facing the liberty movement today. Can we compromise? If so, where does it end? If not, is our fight already over?




About Steven Brodie Tucker

Graduated with a degree in Philosophy from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Also studied economics and political science at George Mason.

One Response to “Compromise and the Grassroots”

  1. Robert Shannon

    In 2009-10 I would hear people who had become involved in the Patriot movement use terms and phrases like ” I would die for this country”, ” I would spill my blood for this country”, ” I will fight to restore this nations liberty” etc etc etc.

    Today we have a UNITY = VICTORY MANTRA being promoted all over central Virginia , a concept that is the sole creation and fantasy of the republicrat party establishment, meant to corral the strays who have wandered off the reservation.

    Those of us who view compromise as the term has been defined in todays highly charged, highly polarized electorate are wary for the very reason Mark Levin has talked about for the last 10 years. Compromise has been for the last 30-40 years defined as conservatives yielding ground to the left, ALWAYS. Could anyone out there name even one instance where the left moved our way on a major piece of legislation ? You can’t because it hasn’t happened. It has been the conservatives yielding to more spending, bigger government, and a continued loss of personal liberty.

    We , at least the few left who will fight, do so with the available resources and tools that are at our disposal. We protest outside our representatives offices, we put up signs alongside the roadways hounding legislators , we organize newspaper Inserts and paid Ad’s ridiculing their actions. We confront them with stern and demanding tones and forceful protests, witnessed by State Senator Tommy Norment when he spoke at a King William TEA Party meeting last year. Anyone there witnessed a vigorous exchange between citizens still willing to fight and a textbook example of a man who is anything but a public servant.

    FIGHT ? Most of the folks engaged in this effort have already caved , for a host of reasons. Some so enjoy their coveted seat at the table that they dare not rile their masters. Some have such a misguided sense that if only we elect more republicrats all will be well. Some just simply are cowards and have no fight in them.

    When a leader of a group won’t publically go after corrupt elected officials men and women who are steering the ship towards the shoals ,for no better reason than he “doesn’t want the blow back” what other conclusion can one come to ? Fighters welcome the blowback, fighters are energized by the blowback. This is just one example of the “compromisers” that I have come to detest.

    The notion that more classes on the Constitution , more leadership training from organizations who are now just milking the movement for money, star studded guest speakers meant to fill a room ( and sell books )…….listen up

    We know what the problems are, we have identified remedies that will work, talk talk talk until you run out of breath.

    Fight ? By the time these “timid Tim’s” are ready to dig in and fight it may very well be too late . Until then folks who are and have been actually taking the fight to these criminals are waiting for reinforcements to arrive.

    Bob Shannon


Leave a Reply to Robert Shannon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!