My allegorical response to you takes me back to learning how to sail back in the BSA:mojo84 wrote:This session brought some questions I've had over the years to forefront in my mind. I do not necessarily have the answers or definitive positions regarding some of them. Still formulating my thoughts around these and would appreciate input from you whatever they are.
I am a person of principle and believe there are many issues that are black and white and to stand up for no matter what. I can also get caught up on principle to the point of my own detriment in certain circumstances. I also believe there are some issues that are up to personal choice based upon one's own beliefs, morals, religion, upbringing, culture and teachings. There are many principles in which I agree with the CJ's, Sticklands and Huffines of the world. However, their rhetoric, tactics, methods and timing leaves much to be desired. Here are the questions.
How hard does one stand on principle when in a public office such as the house of representatives or congress, president, governor or lt. governor?
How do you balance principle and compromise?
On what type of issues do you compromise your principle's, if any?
Has Stickland rendered himself politically impotent by standing on his principles ?
Was it his tactics and methods or his principles that made him ineffective?
Or, was he effective by standing so firm on his principles and bringing attention to them?
Does being a statesman require one to comprise his principles?
Is right and wrong relative? If it is, is it always relative or just sometimes?
Does someone have to hold 100% to any ideology or platform in order to be credible? Can one be a credible representative of your constituents if you align with the Libertarians in some areas, Conservative in others and liberals in others? Or does one have to 100% faithful to the platform or ideology of a single group?
Is it acceptable to put party over issue?
Looking forward to any feedback any of you are willing to offer. I also used Stickland as an example because he was so visible and in my mind, he has rendered himself completely ineffective as a legislator but many of his backers are even more enamored with him and consider him their hero and great defender of Liberty.
I learned how to sail when I worked the summer at Scout Camp. I never sailed again after that course was over, so I don't remember much, but I do remember one thing: you almost never get to take a straight path toward your goal. You have to tack left and right, inching toward your target, getting ever closer. This is especially true when you're fighting a headwind from exactly the direction you want to go. You can still get where you want to go, but the tacks have to be even more extreme in order to overcome the prevailing winds.
If I apply this allegory to the political spectrum, I think it's quite appropriate. I think that it's OK for someone to state their goal, and then state that they will 'tack' toward that goal. If they say, "I'm going that direction, no matter what, and if I don't get it, I'm going to sink this boat", then they're a fool. It just doesn't work that way.
This does not mean compromise on principles, but it does mean take small victories, tack by tack, and then eventually you get what you wanted. Sure, it took longer, but you succeeded. It's a lot better to succeed slowly (read: Cotton approach) than it is to fail immediately and permanently (read: Stickland approach).
State the principles, and always work toward them. If something comes up that flies directly in the face of those principles, then push back. Otherwise, go with the flow a bit to get what you want.