I'm fine with this so long as you don't lose sight of the end goal. And that's a danger in most political systems. I'll use the space program for an illustration (but let's not debate whether or not we should have one in this thread).JSThane wrote:Short version: if "compromise" sets you backwards on any of your goals and/or ideals, reject it. However, if it gets you half of what you want, instead of the whole thing, take it, then go for the other half next session. Never accept any compromise that sets you back, but consider each one that that sets you forward, even it it doesn't get you all the way to your end-point.
Example: I am one of those Constitutional-carry proponents. I believe that if you can own it, you should be able to carry it, anywhere and in any fashion, without any government-sponsored "permission slip" required. However, if a previously-banned method or manner of carry is opened up to licensees, I will accept and support it, so long as the ultimate goal of "any gun, any where, any manner" is ultimately worked towards, and hopefully achieved.
Be radical in your ideals, and realistic in your goals. Incrementalism works both ways.
Following the successes of the Apollo program, NASA and those that funded it had to answer "what's next?" Many at NASA wanted to keep the ball rolling and start developing a program to take us to Mars. But when the realities of funding set in, the debate was over what interim step could start moving us in that direction (where to compromise). So the Shuttle came about, with the next step being the space station. But then the US space station became the International Space Station (ISS) and it became the end in and of itself. Since the last moon mission, our furthest venture from the surface of our planet wouldn't equal a drive from Houston to Abilene. So the space program is merely a program of going in circles while accomplishing very little. And the space program has lost the magical allure of the space race era. The momentum to continue has been lost and it would take a major event to reverse that. So the compromise position has almost become and end unto itself.
In other words, we need to keep pressing toward our end goal, which to me would be constitutional carry. I think constitutional carry is a bridge too far right now. We should keep pressing for it. But take what gains we can and come back next time and try to move the rock a little more in that direction. But let's not be like Sisyphus pushing the rock and going nowhere.