Regarding the material itself, I couldn’t agree more with the idea that people need to stand up for the values that are important to them, and it’s a credit to RoseAnn that she acknowledges the character of people who stand up strongly for their values, even when different from hers.

However, in a nation comprised of people with different values, there are only three outcomes when compromise is not an option: total acceptance of a single set of values, total policy domination by one set of people over any others who disagree, or gridlock where nothing can be accomplished.

In the absolutist view held by RoseAnn, the Founding Fathers would be considered “wimps” on at least two major points:

-The issue of slavery was not settled conclusively one way or another, and the 3/5 principle was applied as a stopgap.

-Representation in Congress was not purely by population or purely equal for each state, but a compromise where separate houses represented both weightings.

In the absolutist view, there would be no compromise on such fundamental issues until one faction or another could push their preference exclusively into law. Instead, the Founders chose to compromise, with each faction gaining and losing something in the process, buy the nation moving forward as a result.

Compare that to Congress today, where Republicans won’t even allow Republican-generated ideas to move forward when the result might be seen as progress while Obama’s in office. Instead, this “my way or no way” approach is holding back the recovery of this country, and that’s a real tragedy.

If Romney were to win, for example, watch how fast the GOP starts to move on policies like debt ceiling increases or maintaining provisions of the PPACA and try to spin it like it’s anything different than what they were fighting against when Obama was president.

RoseAnn,

Would it really be so surprising that we don’t have common ground on some issues? In fact, I would go as far to say that there’s a lot of truth in this part of what you said (spelling corrected):

“You are correct about the divisions between the Republicans and the Democrats. Seeking what is right is no longer a motivation – preserving power is. And We, the American people, pay the price for the ambitions of special interests and party hacks. I must also remind you that when the Democrats were in full power they locked the Republicans out of the deliberations. Bullies in a sense, but at least honest about what was happening. On the other hand, the Republicans pretend to listen but have set their agendas none-the-less.

Neither Party deserves our respect”

My general take after a being around for the past half century is that while many politicians start off with a values-based agenda, the combination of “paying your dues” and “being a team player for the party”, along with the desire to maintain and grow influence/power, inevitably becomes a corrupting force. Not necessarily corrupting in the criminal sense, but definitely in that self-preservation of office and growing in power become the primary focus, and acting on behalf of the constituents (especially at a political cost) is a distant second.

I find it sadly ironic that as the GOP works to defeat the counterproductive influence of unions, it’s blind to the fact that as an institution, it embraces many of the union-like traits that it seeks to stamp out. The Democrats embrace the same traits, of course. The power brokers and bosses set agendas and pick the favored standard-bearers, who in turn have to pay back the patronage even if that means supporting things they’re personally against. How many big-party candidates truly set their own platforms and then persuade the party to get behind it, rather than the other way around?

Dwight Eisenhower had a great quote about leadership:

“Pull the string, and it will follow wherever you wish. Push it, and it will go nowhere at all.”

We need more leaders like Washington, who despite being from the upper class in his time, has a true empathy for what mattered to all men and women, and was able to pull people to follow him for the common when he lacked the means to force them to. When he later had the means, he stayed true to his character, and continued to lead by pulling instead of pushing.

“Leadership takes a talent for first knowing what is right and then being able to influence others. If you are right in any aspect of life, you should be able to articulate it and be persuasive.”

Couldn’t agree more, with one distinction. I was a much more self-righteous person in my teens and 20s, and very judgmental of people who didn’t see the same “truths” in the world as I did. Time and experience have both humbled and tempered me – I’ve learned that I was wrong about more than a few things, and that few issues are truly black-and-white. In other areas my convictions only deepened, and as you said, I’ve learned the importance of being able to articulate my case for them effectively.

The point I’m trying to make is that while it’s important to stand up for what you believe is right, it’s also important to acknowledge that you may not be 100% right about some things. People can hold different views in the broad sense, while sharing some common underlying values. (Non-political example – how many different faiths consider themselves authentically “Christian” despite major differences?) People need to be able to listen to dissenting views and acknowledge the truths that may be underlying them, rather than just dismissing them out of hand because the door to compromise might have to be opened instead.

Washington understood compromise, and employed it. So did Reagan and Lincoln. Do we need leaders who can actually keep their values intact despite the lure of power and the pressure of major parties? Yes, and desperately. However, we can’t expect that anyone can be a leader in a nation of several hundred million and not expect a certain degree of compromise to be needed to get anything done. You don’t need to only hit home runs to win at baseball – put enough base hits together and you accomplish the same goal.

In closing, consider the alternative. Racism and a tolerance for slavery were part of the European experience in the Americas since the time of Columbus. The Founders punted on that issue, but the issue was already dividing the colonies for generations by then. Even Washington refused to free his slaves while he and his wife were alive, because their livelihood was dependent on the underlying economics. I’ve never seen a proposal for how this issue could have been resolved, in an acceptable way for the slave states, that would have led to a single United States being formed within a decade or two of the end of the Revolution. The Franklin cartoon so many TEA Party types are fond of says “Join, or die”, not “Confirm, or die”. The Civil War happened because we chose to join in the 1780’s and that gave us a nation to fight for decades later. The alternative wouldn’t have been the abolition of slavery in that same time, but the division of the colonies into a patchwork of nations that likely would still be separate today, even with slavery eliminated.