We have watched and heard our President and members of Congress call for "COMPROMISE," as often as they "catch a breath."
I submit that it is "compromise" which is the root cause of our failing system of government.
The walls of government once heard and experienced the practice of "debate, the "art of forensics," in its totality.
Many high schools, in years past, had a forensics club, and held inter school debate contests. Students would debate such topics as prohibition, or highway speed limits, to gain the knowledge and experience in presenting a sound, and solid argument for "something." Afterwards, the opposing side would present its "rebuttal." Their case against the proposal, backed by facts and data, with the objective of proving the lack of true substance for recognition.
This is still in practice in our court system, where the purported guilty person, must be proven so with evidence and "forensics."
The very exact date and time, when "compromise" replaced the act of debate, I cannot say. I can say that it is a product of "corruption," "back-room deals," and "special interests" motivation.
Our government no longer functions under the principle of "what is good for the whole." It is, haphazardly steered by, "give and take," bargaining, "quid pro quo," and "everyone must get something."
"Compromise" was the genesis of "political correctness." It is the "far left's" ludicrous ideology that there "should be no loser in a children's baseball game." It is the basis of countless "bridges to nowhere" projects, wasteful spending, and acceptance of under achievement and lower quality performance. It becomes the veil to hide responsibility and accountability.
In an environment of "compromise," there is no room for leadership, since leadership is accountability and responsibility.
Therefore, as part of this "adventure" we have undertaken, I believe we should strive to bring back, open, fair, debate. We must recognize that the decisions made by the persons we elect to represent us, will not always "please us," as long as they result in "good for the whole." We must expect "objectivity," and "substance" which can stand up to the tests of "fairness." We must be open to all opinions, but remain focused on making only one decision. We must recognize that we cannot "stand for, believe, or, take action on everything." We must "enforce our laws," for without enforcement you "have no law." We must recognize the "rights of individuals," yet realize there will always be individuals or groups who have not earned rights, or that there are, or will be, rights which should not be granted.
Finally, a "government of the people, for the people, and by the people," cannot effectively co-exists with "special interests groups and lobbyists."
Submitted for contemplation..............