The Abject Failure of 'Pragmatism'

'Pragmatism,' as it pertains to politics, is the concept that maintains one must place negotiation and compromise ahead of principle in order to 'get things done.'

The obvious problem inherent in that mode of thinking is, what, exactly, have you 'gotten done' once you have negotiated and compromised away all of your core principles?

Using the healthcare debate as an example, how can there be any negotiation or compromise with those who have aligned themselves with the enemies of the U.S. Constitution, i.e., Marxists?  Would it have been worth it for the GOP to have compromised with outright traitors in Congress and the White House, all in an effort to preserve 'some' of what we want even as the vast majority of our medical and economic rights are erased?

During the Cold War of the 1960s and 70s the pragmatists held sway, convincing politicians and the electorate that the only way to deal with the Soviet Menace was to 'compromise' with them on nuclear bombs.  'Detente,' as it was called, was a concept based upon mutually assured destruction, supposedly insuring that each side would not be the first to start a nuclear war, knowing that the other side would respond in kind, resulting in the total destruction of BOTH sides in the end.

The problem was that the Soviets viewed detente as a golden opportunity to continue to amass a vast arsenal of nukes and continue their march toward total domination of Europe and other areas of the world--all of which would be unanswered by the United States due to the 'pragmatic' threat of mutually assured destruction.

This mutton-headed approach to a mortal threat continued until Ronald Reagan was elected to the White House in 1980.  Reagan was convinced, and rightly so, that the pragmatic approach was being used by the enemy to weaken the United States.  He would have nothing of it and insisted that the only prudent course of action was to make the United States the only superpower in the world, complete with a military and nuclear arsenal that was far superior to that of the Soviets.

For this Reagan was called a war-monger, a quick-triggered cowboy, a reckless outlaw in the 'global community,' and a lone ranger who had lost his mind because he refused to adhere to the 'calm, rational approach' of 'detente.'

Rational?  The entire notion of detente was based upon mutually assured destruction, for heaven's sake.  How is THAT in any way 'rational?'

Reagan's philosophy was that we build up our military that had been decimated under Jimmy Carter and the Democrats in the 1970s, kick into high gear our development of the latest nuclear technology, and become such a force in the world that the Communists would never dare attack us.

It took several skirmishes to make believers out of the Soviets, including a military venture into Grenada, which succeeded in driving the Communists out of the country.

And in the end, the Soviets were bankrupted attempting to keep up with America's vast buildup of our national defense, eventually resulting in the complete demise of the Soviet Union.

Principle, not pragmatism, is what motivated Reagan's approach to the Cold War, and we won.

Frankly, I have grown rather sick of pragmatism of late.  Democrats in the Congress have shown that they are the enemies of the Constitution and of individual liberty.  Moderates, conservatives, blue dogs, whatever you wish to call them, all caved to the Marxist push in the end.  Had it not been for the cowardly behavior on the part of the so-called 'conservative Democrats,' ObamaCare would never have been approved.

So, how can there be any rational collaboration with these people?  They would throw their own mothers and babies under the bus in order to please their new Fuhrer sitting in the White House.

No greater example of this can be found than Bart Stupak, the once so-called 'pro-life' Democrat who claimed he would hold strong and never compromise his principles.

Now look at him.  When the pressure was on, the saintly, 'principled' Stupak sold his soul for a bowl of porridge.  So much for 'pro-life Democrats.'

Sorry, folks, but these people have demonstrated they cannot be trusted.  So how can we trust them with firearms issues and other matters of extreme importance to individual liberty?

How can the NRA continue with its policy of collaborating with statists, collectivists, enemies of liberty, in order to advance what will result in nothing more than gun owners being thrown a bone or two just to appease them?  If the NRA continues with its partnership with Democrats of any stripe, it is no friend of mine.  My days of putting up with that are OVER.  

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, there can be no compromise with the enemies of liberty.  There can be no negotiating with people who have stated openly that the Constitution is nothing more than a 'founding document' that essentially has no authority today.

Pragmatism and negotiation have failed miserably.  These are the days when principled men and women must step up to the plate and hold firm to our Founders' vision with NO compromise.  Those who waver by being willing to negotiate with tyrants are basically worthless in the cause of liberty.