Now the Progressives want us to be “bipartisan”, to meet the President “in the middle”, “to compromise”.
The easy answer, one that I am prone to use, is that compromise with wrong, with evil, and so forth is to get to a “settlement” that is to some degree wrong, evil, or whatever.
The model for that is to take a pitcher of fresh, cool, sparkling, clear, clean water.
And get a pitcher of sewage from your septic tank, or a well used toilet, or some such place.
Pour some of the clean water into a glass–about half a glassful.
How much of the sewage can you add to the glass of clean water (how much compromise?) before the water is no longer clean enough for you to drink?
But wait. That is really not the whole story, and the rest of it is one we really need to think carefully about.
Suppose we also have a pitcher full of the most perfect wine available.
Suppose we half-fill a clean glass with the wine (let’s give it a name, something like Premium Conservative Libertarian, just for fun).
Suppose we add some of the clean water to the wine (watering it down, so to speak).
How much can we water down (“compromise”) the wine before we could not drink it, no matter what?
Now, suppose this whole thing was a metaphor for an election for, say, Senator from Missouri.
A third of the people voting really like (inexplicably) the sewage.
A third insist on perfectly pure wine.
And a third are not so fussy, as long as it is not sewage.
Is there a place for compromise here?