By Selwyn Duke
The epic movie "Braveheart" is a classic story about the struggle between the spirit and the flesh. Portrayed in this dramatization of actual events is Robert the Bruce, a Scottish noble and idealistic young man who is torn between the desire to preserve his riches and status, and his loyalty to William Wallace and his commitment to Scottish independence. While his conscience tells him to abide by his principles, he has a devil on his shoulder in the person of his father, who is a shadowy, Machiavellian leper who tells his son that it does indeed profit a man to gain the world but to lose his soul. In the elder Bruce's effort to cajole his son into doing his nefarious will, he attempts to warp his son's moral compass by distorting his concept of virtue. While doing so he offers much worldly counsel, and tells young Robert the following: it is a man's ability to compromise that makes him noble. The words prove to be very seductive, as son is swayed by father and decides, only to regret it later, to sacrifice fidelity for finances and liberty for security.
Compromise is often very seductive -- after all, it enables everyone to get along. The ability to compromise is thought to be a sign of maturity; children fight, but only an enlightened person, a person who can see both sides, a person who sees the shades of gray, a person who can walk a mile in someone else's shoes will compromise. Or, so they say. In reality, a truly enlightened individual knows when to compromise and when to stand firm. And the all too common failure to correctly make this determination is causing us to allow our freedoms to be whittled away. It's an ignoble tendency that causes us to sacrifice liberty for security in much the same way that the young Scottish noble did.
The problem in a nutshell, is that we have allowed the left to frame virtually every political and social debate in our society. They make demands while we hardly ever do; they are proactive whereas we are reactive. Consequently, when we compromise with them, the result is that while we may not meet all their demands, we'll still meet some of them. This occurs with most every issue nowadays, and gun-control and the new government prescription drug handout are good examples. Here's what happens: the left will propose a new law or program, which means that they're proposing to remove more freedom, micromanage our lives more and/or use more of our money for their charities. Then what happens? Well, we will oppose it, but if we are not willing to play ball with them somewhat they will accuse us of causing "gridlock." So, in an effort to reach a consensus and not seem unreasonable we will usually agree on a watered down version of their bill -- one that doesn't remove as many freedoms as the unadulterated bill would have, but one that removes some freedoms nevertheless. The problem with this course of action is that it ensures unremitting movement toward totalitarianism -- big brother -- communism -- call it what you will...a rose by any other name...This is because each time this kind of "compromise" is reached the left has gotten a little more of what they want, and if this is done for long enough eventually they will get ALL they want -- it will just happen incrementally. Now, do you realize what this really means? It means that what we are terming compromise really isn't compromise at all, because in time they will get EVERYTHING they want.
It really is the ultimate smoke and mirrors deception. What has the appearance of compromise over the short term is really complete capitulation over the long term. It's compromise in every frame of time, but when they are all fused together and run as footage you see that it's George Orwell's "1984." It's compromise in every paragraph, but when they are all compiled into book form you see that it is the Communist Manifesto. To put it differently yet again, the left operates thusly: they invade your territory, and then when you try to expel them they claim you are being unreasonable. Then, they define compromise as your giving them 50% of the land they invaded and say that if you do not there cannot be peace. You then trade the Sudetenland for peace in our time, but a month later they invade more territory and make the same outrageous claims all over again...and then again...and again... Well, it's like math class in school: if you can finish the progression you can see what lies ahead. Soon you will have no land left and will be pushed into the sea.
It's not really hard to understand why this happens. Freedom loving Americans are reluctant to try to effect change for a number of reasons; one of them is because they know that a fool walks where angels fear to tread -- before you undermine the status quo you'd better be sure you are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire. They also know that a law cannot change a heart -- you can't legislate society to perfection. Lastly and most importantly, they know that the proper way to mitigate most social ills is through the inculcation of virtue in the individual, a by-product of which will be that he will govern himself more rightly from within. Liberals on the other hand, love change; to them change represents progress. They don't realize that change is not by definition good; it is simply a means to an end and constant change leads to the throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. But the bottom line is that for these reasons they are the ones who propose change, and because of that they are the ones who shape the debate.
What is the solution? Well, there are two things that must be done, and the first one involves a little legislative action. I propose that we draw up what I'll call the "Defense Against Tyranny Bill." This bill would place a cap on the number of federal laws, regulations and mandates that could exist simultaneously [what number should be allowed could be debated]. This would mean that once that number was reached no more legislation could be enacted, unless room was made for it by rescinding an existing law -- this would serve as a bulwark against the growth of government. Call it the law to end all excessive laws.
The second part of the equation is more difficult to effect and also more important, because unless it becomes a reality the above proposal will be dead in the water. Freedom loving Americans must experience a transformation in their understanding and approach, in that we must realize how the wool has been pulled over our eyes and refuse to be snookered. We must invade the left's territory just as the left invades ours, and understand that TRUE compromise means that at worst we'll be holding our ground -- not giving them half of what they unjustly lay claim to. Then we must make territorial demands on the left and attempt to regain lost soil. What this means literally is that we must become proactive: we must start advocating the restoration of freedom through the rescinding of laws, mandates and regulations, and demand individual responsibility and the elimination of big government programs. Take gun-control for instance: as I said earlier, we let them propose more restrictions and then meet them halfway and accept it as compromise. But we need to take the offense: we must propose rescinding such laws at least as frequently as the left proposes creating them, so that when we do compromise and meet them halfway the worst that will happen is that there will be no freedom-robbing change. This is why I applied the label of "freedom loving Americans" to my side -- simply being conservative is not enough. A conservative is simply one who wants to preserve the status quo, that's why a conservative in the former Soviet Union was a communist. The status quo today is ever-expanding government that says to freedom, "There isn't enough room on this block for the two of us." We must think outside the box and go beyond being conservative -- we must become crazy for freedom. And that means we must compromise on our terms -- from a position of strength -- as the occupiers, not the occupied. As my father used to tell me, "The best defense is a good offense." Those are words to live by.
