This has a two part answer:mojo84 wrote:How hard does one stand on principle when in a public office such as the house of representatives or congress, president, governor or lt. governor?
- If you are serving in an elected position, I think you have to remember that while you were elected by the majority, you represent your entire electorate, not just the majority who voted for you. That means that you are morally bound to advance the agenda of the majority which elected you, while still protecting the rights of the minority who did not. An obvious example would be Obama's record on executive orders. He was elected by a majority who are not particularly friendly to the republican form of democratic government, and so he was following their desires with his attempts at bypassing Congress to enact laws. And in doing so, he both denied the rights of representation for those who would oppose his EOs, and he created precedents which will likely permanently poison the relationship between future executives and Congress.
- Also, it is commonly said that politics is the art of the possible. That translates as, "take what you can get now, take it gratefully, and then plan for the next battle". Open carry is a perfect example. Generally speaking, open carry was possible, but unlicensed open carry turned out not to be possible. (I rather suspect that it would have not been possible even if OCT/OCTC/NAGR/Et al had been kept bound and gagged during the entire silly season, for the simple reason that conservative governments by nature tend not to make sweeping changes.) Intelligent proponents of Constitutional Carry will recognize the passage of HB 910 as a major step forward in the campaign toward the ultimate goal of Constitutional Carry........accepting it as that which was possible today, and seeing it as a victory. Stupid proponents of Constitutional Carry will bray like asses that they were betrayed, that all politicians are evil trolls, that HB 910 was a huge loss, and gnash their teeth until 2017 and beyond.
See #2 above. You advance your interests where you can, recognizing that opposition exists, and your opponents have rights too, which you are constitutionally bound to protect......knowing that, sometimes, protecting/promoting rights and protecting/promoting agenda are not always the same thing. You must be willing to make compromises in your agenda, wherever your agenda would compromise someone else's rights.mojo84 wrote:How do you balance principle and compromise?
You never compromise your principles, but you take what you can get. Accepting a less than 100% victory as anything except a victory is idiotic. In WW2, the Axis powers suffered only 17% of all combined military and civilian deaths, and the Allies suffered 83% of all combined military and civilian deaths (SOURCE); and yet only a pinhead would insist that the Allies lost the war.mojo84 wrote:On what type of issues do you compromise your principle's, if any?
The point of that graphic is to illustrate that anyone who says that an 80% political victory is actually a loss is like them saying that WW2 was lost because the win wasn't bloodless.
Probably. He can try to mend fences, and if he is sincere and actually changes his behavior, he could probably reverse his fortunes and actually get something done. But he doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who will do that, because he doesn't seem to understand that each representative represents their own district's voters, not his district's voters.mojo84 wrote:Has Stickland rendered himself politically impotent by standing on his principles ?
His tactics and methods made him ineffective. He could have brought attention to his principles without burning any bridges.... but that is the problem with the "all or nothing" mindset.mojo84 wrote:Was it his tactics and methods or his principles that made him ineffective?
Or, was he effective by standing so firm on his principles and bringing attention to them?
Again, this is politics, and politics is the art of the possible. He wasn't elected to be a statesman. He was elected to represent his electorate. Effective representation means pushing your agenda as far as you can, and taking what you can get. Getting something is better than getting nothing.mojo84 wrote:Does being a statesman require one to comprise his principles?
NO, it is not. I believe in moral absolutes. But we live in a fallen and imperfect world, and we have to contend with people who may disagree with us, and they have rights too. That is why politics is often compared to sausage-making. Again, you get what you can, you accept that a victory isn't always a perfect victory, and you move on.mojo84 wrote:Is right and wrong relative? If it is, is it always relative or just sometimes?
Platform and ideology have nearly destroyed the nation. The only "platform" I have any longer is the Constitution. But, I am a realist who understands that he lives in a world full of imperfect people, most of whom never actually sat down and thought through whatever ideology they hold to...... and those people vote too. Sad, but true.mojo84 wrote:Does someone have to hold 100% to any ideology or platform in order to be credible? Can one be a credible representative of your constituents if you align with the Libertarians in some areas, Conservative in others and liberals in others? Or does one have to 100% faithful to the platform or ideology of a single group?
See the above. Platform and ideology have nearly destroyed the nation. I parted ways with the republican party because its leaders put party ahead of the principles for which it claims to stand. I describe myself as a "liberative conservatarian". Suzanna Gratia Hupp famously said:mojo84 wrote:Is it acceptable to put party over issue?
Take that quote, and substitute almost any issue for the words "Second Amendment", and she is right on. Consider this variant:"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
I would point out that Rand Paul's stand on getting the NSA's program of domestic spying on private citizens terminated is OPPOSED by prominent republicans like Lindsey Graham. When prominent and powerful republicans WANT you and me to be spied on by government, how can the republican party then claim to support smaller government and greater individual liberty? The fact is, while state and local republicans may feel that way, the national party does not. So why should I support it?"How a politician stands on the NSA's collection of private phone data tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
The people who elected him are naive. Did they elect him to be their hero, or did they elect him to effectively represent their interests?mojo84 wrote:Looking forward to any feedback any of you are willing to offer. I also used Stickland as an example because he was so visible and in my mind, he has rendered himself completely ineffective as a legislator but many of his backers are even more enamored with him and consider him their hero and great defender of Liberty.