Seriously, though, compromise is not what this country is founded on at all. Our nation began with a violent revolution against foreign tyranny. Despite strong Tory opposition, the crazy Boston freedom fighters found supporters in the other colonies and formed a coalition against the British for independence. Then they risked their lives firing on British troops. What part of "Give me Liberty or give me Death" implies a compromising position? I don't see the wiggle room there.
Similarly, in 1865, the South refused to compromise on slavery. South Carolina didn't offer some middle ground where slaves would get some reduced minimum wage in exchange for tax breaks on cotton. They risked their lives firing on federal troops at Fort Sumter.
 |
| strikers in Memphis, 1968 |
So, listen, you may have compromised, and maybe it was a smart move, but don't tell us that this country was "founded on compromise," because that's just not true. And it does a disservice to those who gave their lives to rid us of British oppression, those who died to end slavery, and those who died so that you could someday become President.
Be honest. This backroom political deal was was "compromise we'll have to live with," not "change we can believe in."
UPDATE: yes i know the japanese bombed pearl harbor. For those of you who haven't seen Animal House and didn't get my snark:
3 comments:
The nation wasn't founded on compromise, I agree. The heroism of M.L.K. wasn't about compromise either. I'll defend the President on this compromise, for now, however. His job is to govern and I think that is what he did. Granted I think the extension of the reduced marginal rate for income over $250,000 and adjustments that the G.O.P. sought are poor tax policy and hypocritical in light of their supposed issue with the deficit. If, however, you look at some of what the compromise procured for 98% of Americans, I think it is a good thing. It extends unemployment benefits for 13 months, retains some increased aspects of the earned income tax credit (which is a great program for the working poor with families), and should provide more take home pay to those of us who get such things.
By giving on the extension of the reduced marginal rate, the President was able to get some needed $ into the hands of some of our friends, family, neighbors, and citizens who need it the most.
Here's a good article, at least I think, that sort of sets it out:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/how_the_white_house_cut_the_de.html?hpid=topnews
I hope that's snark. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
Whoosh...
Post a Comment