The role of compromise

As new poll shows that many Americans don't want their representatives to compromise on issues:



As public officials continue to wrestle with hot-button issues ranging from abortion to gay rights to the death penalty, they may find thinner ranks of Americans supporting compromise. Those are some of the findings from a national survey by the nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization Public Agenda that compares how Americans' views of religion in public life have changed between the years 2000 and 2004. The survey (conducted before the November election) found a smaller number of Americans who believe that deeply religious elected officials sometimes have to compromise in the political arena, with major decreases among those who attend religious services weekly.



I understand that, many times, compromise is essential in conducting business in government. Our current government is the result of numerous compromises. But compromise can be beneficial only in an environment of key beliefs. I don't expect anyone, liberal or conservative, to alter their fundamental moral beliefs. I don't see how one can call it a belief if they are willing to go to the mattresses over it. If I vote for a person who says he is pro-life, pro traditional marriage, pro small government, I would be offended if he voted against those values.

Now, as to why we have seen this decrease, I have no answers, though it is an interesting subject. I wonder if the resolve of Pres. Bush has strengthened America's resolve. We have seen that a person can get re-elected without sliding toward the center. We have seen that Pres. Bush can accomplish much without compromising his core beliefs. We need people who know what they believe and refuse to recant to be in leadership. I hope that this "trend" continues.