I've been lurking a bit here--checking out some of the various threads before I dive in. I think that there is a need for me to state a general principle that will apply to many of the discussions here.
Many people here have expressed their desires for what they think would be right and good in American government, including a return to very conservative practices, and a much stricter Constitutionalism, as they define it. There is nothing wrong with having these opinions and desires. There is nothing wrong with working towards these goals. But it is important to remember that Politics is the Art of Compromise and of Forging Consensus where there is none. One is limited in Politics by what is Possible, and what is not Possible. One cannot just impose one's will on the body politic--that is a dictatorship, and even a "righteous" dictatorship in my mind would be terrible. I hope that those here who value strict, conservative Constitutional principles will not a) opt out of the political process because they think they will never achieve those goals or b) look to some "knight on a white horse" to come in and "rescue" the Republic.
So when we participate in the political process, we have to build a coalition with those with whom we do not agree in every particular. We have to be willing to compromise. Unfortunately, the number of Americans who believe strongly in such conservative ideals is a minority. Perhaps it is a significant minority, and perhaps it is growing. There has been a lot of work done in the last 30-50 years to educate and spread Conservative ideas. We don't have the Universities, or the "main-stream" media. But it is not going to happen overnight. And there is a long way to go. Remember that Al Gore got more popular votes than George W. Bush. So there is a long way to go.
So keep educating people in conservative, Constitutional principles. Keep working to further good government and good policy. But when we get a President like George W. Bush, who may not be perfect in our minds as regards immigration and other issues, at least be grateful that he has chosen good judges and that he has responded well to the challenge of Islamo-fascism. When the Republicans in Congress let us down, as they do fairly often, keep in mind that the alternative is much worse.
This may require some holding-our-nose and working with people with whom we disagree, or making some compromises along the way. Doctrinal purity is appropriate for the religious sphere of action--but politics is not so clear-cut.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
There is some validity that argument that the national government is at their most effective when you have a president from one party and congress controlled by the other party. It in effect makes two thing happen: Compromise, and ineffectiveness. And sometimes an ineffective government is a good thing. Borrowing a phrase: "First: Do no harm."
You could say a beginning driver is safe because he rides both the brake and the accelerator. Such a driver will not be cited for breaking speed limits. Is it not really better, however, to acquire skill in driving?
Shiz is right in working within limits of the possible, and educating the populace is not only possible, it is imperative.
While there is some merit to what Shiz says, I think that there are also times to dare the impossible. It seems to me that there is a massive shift towards socialism in this country. My wife, who grew up under socialism, agrees. The compromises I see being made are generally how much socialism we should have, and not whether or not we should have some. I'm against compromise when there is a principle of the gospel being potentially violated. And that is the situation I too often see anymore. Many things have been accomplished by those who dare the impossible. I'm sure that, during Nephite times, someone could have made a very good case that it was impossible to eradicate the Gadiantons. Yet, on one occassion they accomplished that very thing.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
It was certainly an impossible thing to throw off the British Rule in the days of Revolutionary America! That was no mean feat. But keep in mind that the Founders did not rush to Revolution--indeed they resisted it as long as they were able. They sought to resolve their issues with Parliament and the King in a peaceful, reasonable manner as long as it was possible.
The Civil Rights struggle in the 60's was also an impossibility realized, and again it was brought about through peaceful means, working within the established system as much as possible.
So there are times to idealistically reach for the Impossible Dream, but those who do so, whether they be Martin Luther King or John Adams, are often pragmatic and streetwise men who are "wise as serpents" in the ways of the political world.
__________________
I'm not voting for Ron Paul because it's not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.
I agree with arbilad - I see this unhealthy trend to Socialism, especially fiscal Socialism (along with debt), and this is one area against the Constitution that I will not compromise with ... and we as a nation have done this for decades, and look where we are now
Obviously the entitlement attitude and debt of the citizens have a massive role in this, but this is a trend we must fight ... against Communistic influences from within, that Prophets have warned us against since the late 1800s and especially McKay and Benson.
__________________
Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land.
- D&C 38:29
All of you make some good points. The thing that worries me about compromise is when is it okay and when is it not? I think that we are more likely to lose freedoms gradually rather than in one big step, so how do we (or the representatives we elect) know when to stop compromising?
__________________
"We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart." (Blaise Pascal 1623-1662)
