We’re entering the home stretch of the election season with lies and misdirections coming fast and furious. Your preferred candidates may say all the right things on the stump, but do you know what they’ll do after the election, when those who bankrolled their campaigns come asking for favors? Will they stand firm on the issues they championed during the campaign (if they gave specific stances at all) or will they compromise in order to “get stuff done?”
It’s important to find out now, while they’re still willing to take your calls and they still care about your vote. They may not be so attentive later on.
Lines In The Sand
One of the greatest misconceptions about politics is the idea that the key to effective government is compromise. But compromise is not a political virtue, and too many elected officials forget that.
Part of the problem is that we confuse the sphere of law and government (the State) with other facets of life where compromise is a necessary function. In critical spheres like marriage, or in financial matters such as contract negotiations, compromise can be a good thing, though not always.
Yet when discussing the governing of people — governance that may hold the threat of force behind it — compromise can be a sledgehammer used shatter important walls that protect us. Compromise is typically the enemy of good policy because compromise obscures and/or outright stifles debate on specifics. And specifics matter…a lot.
It’s likely that many of the people you’re planning to vote for will compromise on anything if the price is right, or if their pet project is on the line. Many have been at it for several years now, and are even now blanketing the airwaves and internet lying about it, or using all variety of misdirection to cover up the facts about their records.
Ask them what lines in the sand they’ve drawn, what things they will never compromise on.
Unless they have a litany of ready examples, you may be dealing with a political animal — a swamp creature, if you will — and you’d be surprised how common they are. They wear the mask, play the game, slip amendments into bills that nobody has the time to read, and claim victory in their media appearances.
“I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle.”
— Andrew Carnegie
Their smiling Facebook photo-ops may look productive and the legislation they take credit for might sound necessary, unless you discover your representative compromised to allow puberty blockers and abortion funding into that conservative spending bill, or you learn that practically everyone on both sides of the aisle was selling out constituents to get it passed, hoping nobody would call them out on it or even notice when it passed. People rarely do.
Again, ask them what those lines in the sand are, and whether or not they passed the freedom test in 2020. If they wore a mask, got the shot, or enforced the mandates, then odds are they’ll compromise core principles the next time, too.
That’s one way to sift the swamp creatures from the patriots. Another is to notice whom the swamp trains their sights on.
Agitators
“If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.”
— Margaret Thatcher
Fredrick Douglass was near the end of his long journey through a tumultuous life. Born into slavery, he escaped to the North in 1838 where he soon became one of the greatest self-educated American statesmen in history, playing a crucial role in securing freedom for millions and upending political apple carts for the rest of his life.
In his old age, Douglass enjoyed walks around the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington D.C. where he lived. He would often encounter admirers seeking his wisdom and counsel. One day a young man asked Douglass what advice he would give to someone looking to fight for justice. Without a second’s hesitation, Douglass answered him simply:
“Agitate. Agitate. Agitate.”
Establishment politicians don’t like agitators; they make everyone in the wheeler-dealer, cigars-and-brandy back rooms uncomfortable. Professional legislators have stairs to climb, and quaint things like following the law, upholding the Constitution, and voting the way your constituents want you to often impedes that.
“A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.”
— H. L. Mencken
Is your candidate a compromiser, or an agitator?
Don’t forget that foolish people called you an agitator because you refused to comply with the crowd in 2020 and beyond. Good for you. Those candidates who refused to compromise are your people; vote for them instead of the hand-picked, teleprompter-dependent challengers who avoid debates and unstructured conversations.
Any actor can repeat talking points. Get them off script and you’ll soon learn what they’re really made of. Be sure to get them on camera because there is nothing an empty suit hates worse than answering questions without an adviser handy. Which leads me to another point:
If you’re unsure where a candidate stands, send them a very specific email and ask for a written reply.
The swamp creatures will try to call you instead, and talk their way around it. This is because they don’t want a written record of their policy positions. They’d rather schmooze and rely on charisma than facts. If they’re unwilling to put firm stances to controversial issues in writing, the odds are you’re dealing with a political animal climbing their latest ladder.
Those types are not for you.
In this election you can tell who the agitator candidates are by what the swamp says about them:
She does her own thing.
You never know what he’s going to do next.
His tone is off-putting.
We can’t work with her, she’s too rigid.
He doesn’t follow our agenda.
She’s off the reservation.
These are common traits among independent thinkers, and they drive the cabal crazy. Nobody owns them and therefore nobody controls their conduct; they ask hard questions and expose the political party machines. They have the audacity to listen to their constituents and vote no on things the establishment has already vetted among themselves.
“‘Compromise’ is so often used in a bad sense that it is difficult to remember that properly it merely describes the process of reaching an agreement. Naturally there are certain subjects on which no man can compromise. For instance, there must be no compromise under any circumstances with official corruption, and of course no man should hesitate to say as much.”
— Theodore Roosevelt
The agitators make life hell for the grifting political class, so the compromisers are always on the prowl recruiting new yes-men to reinforce their ranks.
Compromise or Cowardice?
On March 7th, 1850, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster rose to deliver one of the most important speeches in American history. It became his most infamous, and effectively ended his long, storied political career.
His goal that day was to convince a number of moderates to support Kentucky Senator Henry Clay’s measure to legislate away the issue of slavery.
The Compromise of 1850, as it is now known, was a collection of patches quilted together by swampy statesmen believing a little liberty for some was better than none for most.
The agreement admitted the new state of California as a free state, gave Utah and New Mexico the freedom to choose their slavery status for themselves, drew a new Texas-New Mexico boundary, and dramatically increased slave owners’ ability to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
“I speak today for the preservation of the Union. Hear me for my cause. I speak today, out of a solicitous and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that harmony which make the blessings of this Union so rich, and so dear to us all. If I can do any thing, however little, for the promotion of these ends, I shall have accomplished all that I expect.”
— Daniel Webster
Yet Senator Webster’s goal was contrary to that of his constituents.
He wanted to preserve the union at all costs, and he longed for harmony, a faux harmony that turned a blind eye to the torture and suffering of millions of Americans. He forgot his primary mission: to represent the people who voted for him.
Webster’s eagerness to compromise with slavers was met with fury by the Massachusetts “agitators” whose line in the sand was slavery. Instead of a representative, all they got was a lecture on setting aside first principles for the unity of the nation.
And for what? The Compromise of 1850 passed, yet only delayed the Civil War by ten years, during which time all manner of evil not only persisted, but actually increased. Webster’s constituents saw through it immediately, and in the aftermath of his March 7th speech, Webster was shamed into resigning his Senate seat.
Is your candidate doing what Daniel Webster did? Is he or she bending over backwards to pass something, anything, in order to placate their lobbyist masters? Do they rail about agitator legislators who stick stubbornly to their guns and won’t play ball, making the compromisers and their shady caucuses look bad in the process? “Can’t we all just get along?” they ask. That depends on how much the compromisers are willing to sell out in order to purchase temporary unity.
Unity for Unity’s Sake
It used to be easy for a conservative to select a candidate. The one who was against abortion was good enough for me. But things have changed dramatically in four years. For one thing, we’ve discovered that both Republicans and Democrats lie a lot. We’ve also learned that there are dark undercurrents of graft and protectionism that direct their actions.
A few years back we witnessed how deadly a culture of compromise can be. Leaders claiming authority under false pretenses subjugated millions to unconstitutional mandates. Legislators and local authorities mostly fell in line, deeming concession a virtue, compromise a sacrament.
Many of our countrymen are still straight Republican or Democrat devotees, but I implore everyone to look beyond that hive mentality and judge the trees by the fruit, or rather, the candidate by the principles they demonstrate, especially when they’re standing alone.
“I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct.”
— Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster learned too late that he was merely an employee. Many of our current candidates forget that as well. They want unity and peaceful deliberations at all costs, even if that cost is a loss of principle. They blew you off, ignored your concerns, gave you canned responses, and only pressed the flesh when they needed you. Don’t vote for them.
But there are also the agitators who made things difficult for the swamp, who stood by your family and the Constitution when it wasn’t popular because they’re more concerned with truth than unity. They exposed the lies, attended the presentations, sought the truth, endured the lawfare, racked up the battle scars, and kept fighting regardless of every weapon that was raised against them. These candidates are your people, and they need your vote.
The others were those who wore the mask, obeyed the mandate, closed the church, swallowed the line, and went along with the crowd. They were the followers, and for them it was better to submit and stay in the game than it was to stand for freedom and risk being ostracized. They voted in favor of the bills they didn’t read because the caucus told them to. They certified elections we all knew were bogus because they were threatened into it, or they sat on the sidelines while you and I and rest of the agitators did all the work to save this country.
And if elected, they’ll do it again, because compromise is what they do to remain in power. They have little else to offer.
You can follow me on Telegram, Substack, Frank Social, Truth Social, GETTR, Gab, and X.
If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting us with a paid subscription in the amount of your choice. Or if you’d like to make a one time donation feel free to Buy Me A Coffee. You can subscribe to receive new posts to your inbox for free, as well as get information on my upcoming books and projects.
If you enjoyed this article, you might check out these as well:
Need a break from the politics? Check out the Movie Fight Club, a weekly chance to have pointless arguments about movies. This week’s question:
What is your favorite “dramatic entrance” or introductory scene for a film character?
https://moviefightclub.substack.com/p/movie-fight-club-question-99
My latest book, Those Who Face Death, is available online wherever books are sold. This is the fourth book in the Modern War series.
