Is Compromise Possible When You Can't Even Agree on Whether the Sky Is Blue

Most in the mainstream media place President Trump somewhere on a spectrum that runs from worthless, to dangerous, to evil. Hopefully, the opinions of future historians will not necessarily be clouded by slavish devotion to the Left/Democratic Party/Socialists/media (but I repeat myself).


It would seem logical that people who fail at something, and want not to fail the next time, would ask what they need to do differently? If you hit a golf ball into the rough, you generally assume you did something wrong. You don’t assume the bad shot was the result of demonic intervention, a gypsy spell, or the heartbreak of psoriasis. If you want to hit the next shot better, you need to, well, hit it better.


A saying that has probably been overused is that insanity is doing things the same way and expecting different results. Many leaders on the Left don’t seem to get that. As they put in place plans to win the 2020 election, they ought to start with a firm knowledge of what happened, and why, in 2016. Yet they seem singularly uninterested. Even if they are interested, they just don’t seem to get it. It appears they are basing most of their messaging on inaccurate assumptions.


They see voters who put America first, value life, and want secure borders, and come to the conclusion that we're xenophobic misogynist racists. Well, it probably makes you feel better to assume the other side is evil. But it doesn't necessarily lead to good policy.

Again generalizing, it's fair to say a majority of Trump supporters believe a president ought to act like they like our country, put our interests first, recognize we’re a force for good in the world, and not apologize for America. Very few Democratic presidential candidates can clear that bar. They spend more time telling you what is horrible about America, and why you are a victim, than they do about things that generate pride.


A lot of research has been done on whether/how/when liberals and conservatives, respectively, accept or reject factual arguments that do not comport with their own views. As discussed in this piece, there also seem to be distinctions involving the willingness of liberals to cooperate with conservatives, and the other way around. Interestingly, the side that so strongly promotes tolerance is generally much less willing to cooperate with people of different viewpoints.


Liberals certainly have a lot of opinions about conservatives, Republicans, Trump supporters, gun owners, white southerners, and hungover Chicago Cubs fans who work the late shift, just to name a few. However, those views are derived nearly entirely by assumptions and prejudices of others who think just like they do.


The Left thinks (again, a generalization) that Trump voters only like policies that help the rich. Yet, most people are not rich. Roughly half support Trump. Why? If Trump is just for the rich, and we aren’t rich, why do we support him? The reason is that Trump supporters do not just care about the rich, nor do his policies benefit the rich alone.


Trump supporters want to build the wall. The Left thinks it's because we’re racists. Trump-supporters say it’s important to have secure borders. We’re hung up on the quaint notion that the law, and citizenship, ought to mean something. We don’t (again, generalizing) care about the race or nationality of the people trying to come here illegally. If our long, porous southern border was with Sweden, instead of Mexico, it would not change our views a bit.


Trump supporters don’t think government can run things better than the private sector, so we oppose national government-run health care. The Left says that means we don’t want people to have insurance. But we actually want people to have health care and to have a choice in it. That’s anathema to what the Left wants. They don’t seem to care much about health care, or they wouldn’t be so proud of a Obamacare, as it raised premiums and deductibles and reduced choice for Americans.


Trump supporters think human life is sacred. We think any baby should be entitled to life-saving medical care. The Left does not. They think we’re misogynists, opposed to “health care” for women, because we think babies, alive and outside of the womb, should be loved, nourished, and cared for. Can anyone – anyone? Bueller? – give us an example of a medical condition where preserving the health of the mother requires that a baby outside of her womb be killed? Chirp…. Chirp… Chirp… Yet liberal Democrats continue to maintain that the ability to kill a baby is, somehow, women’s health care. Manifestly, it is not.


Is it any wonder it’s so difficult to come to agreement? Many in the media think it’s the obligation of conservatives to compromise. On what? The value of human life, freedom, preferring private sector growth to governmental growth? How do you compromise on whether a baby born alive, and already outside of the womb, deserves medical care? What are you going to do, provide them half of the care they need?


Where is the common ground? Increasingly, it’s difficult to find.


A campaign is not likely to succeed if it is based on inaccurate assumptions. Yet, Democrats continue to do so. While that does not bode well for a huge national group hug anytime soon, it may help lead to another Democratic defeat. Political campaigns that depend on the other side being incompetent do not have good strategies. However, these days, when Republicans need directions to the nearest spine rental office, we’ll take every gift we can get.

4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All