Obviously, we'll just have to disagree on certain things.

One thing I do want to point out is that compromise, while certainly a fact of life, should be the last option, not the first, and even then, it doesn't necessarily need to be applied in all situations. If you can get enough votes to support your positions, you shouldn't want to compromise. Sometimes, even if you don't have the votes, you need to stand your ground and lose while maintaining your principles. It depends on the situation, and you have to know when to pick your battles.

If I'm a Senator, and I want a sales tax of $0.03/dollar, and my opponent wants a sales tax of $0.09, I shouldn't immediately agree on $0.06 for the sake of compromise. I should state my case and try to get enough votes to back my proposal, because I think it's better. If a $0.09 tax bill is up for a vote, obviously I'll vote against it. If a $0.06 tax bill is up for a vote, then I have a decision to make. I'd have to consider how likely it would be that I'd ever get my $0.03 tax approved if this one failed, or whether the failure of this compromise would mean that the other side might get its way on the next bill. Compromise should be viewed as a method of minimizing defeat, not as a goal in itself. Even then, I'd have to factor in whether my constituents would support such a compromise.

Then, there are some issues on which people on both side take a hard stand. In a different political environment, $0.06 might be completely unacceptable to both sides for whatever reasons, and the only way to solve the issue is by majority rule. Abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and the war in Iraq are issues on which most voters do not want their representatives to compromise. Anything other than a "yes" or "no" is unacceptable to most voters who care about those issues, and I don't see that as extremism, but simply standing up for what one believes in.

If I help elect someone to office to fight for gay marriage and against gun control, I expect him to do just that. If he comes back to me with "civil unions" and "reasonable gun control," I'll help toss him out. If I wanted him to work with the other side on those issues, I'd eliminate the middle man and vote for the other party. There are other, less divisive issues, on which I don't mind a bit of compromise, as long as "compromise" doesn't mean "selling out." However, I'm much more likely to vote for a known fighter who agrees with my positions than a known compromiser.

RE: The Conservative Revival - New York Times