by Robert M. Traxler

On the ninth of December the owner/COO of this esteemed publication penned a column titled “A house divided indeed cannot stand.” The point of the column was that we need to compromise, left and right, both in a spirit of accommodation and come together.

I started to write a comment, but it just got too long, and the points need to be made in a column rather than just a comment. So here it is.

It was interesting that all the examples of compromise the COO called for conservatives to do the giving and liberals to do the taking. Compromise is giving and taking. Just what does the column advocate the left give up?

Einstein made the point that the truest test of a man’s intelligence is how much he agrees with you  Disagree with the liberal orthodoxy and you are called a litany of vile names: racist, sexist, homophobic, Nazi, Fascist, Islamophobic, toxically masculine and a religious fanatic. All public shaming of folks, designed to quell and chill debate.

Want to be free of labels, awful hurtful labels? Toe the liberal party line. Cross the line and you are a  (fill in the blank), you are then shouted down by the media mob, who refer to themselves as open, caring and accepting. Really?

What Second Amendment rights are leftist advocating they give back to the people? Just what taxes do they want to lower on businesses or corporations? What restrictions on religion will be given back? What bullying on colleges of conservative students/speakers does the left want to stop?  Heck, what anything does the left advocate they give back in return for “progress” on liberal issues? I will wager not much. Folks you can’t make this stuff up.

Easy to call for compromise and feign openness when folks define compromise as always taking and not giving. The ideal in a socialist state is that the state is always right; we the people exist for the state, debate does not need to exist as the state is fair and always correct.  Never forget that government of the people, by the people and for the people was a new and radical concept in the late 1700s. It is a concept many on the left want to destroy in the name of National Socialism, with government of the government, by the government and for the government.

A great example, the column stated, “Consult columns in this publication by Ranger Rick and Army Bob.” Columns disagreeing with climate change. Is this an effort to call for folks to censor and degrade Ranger Rick and me for questioning the sacred cow of climate change? It very well could be, it is how the left works, shout down disagreement in the public place. Look to college campuses for the proof. Look to 92% negative coverage of President Trump according to a Harvard study,  for the proof. 92% negative just fails the common-sense test.

The good folks on the socialist side of the divide are not always right,  but they are never wrong, just ask them. Not all, but certainly most. Most firmly believe government is not only an answer, it is the only allowable and approved answer to problems. Government and not the parents should raise your kids and grandkids; it takes a village (read government) to raise your children, not your family.

In a pure socialist government, religion, unions, private ownership of the means of production and distribution are not allowed. Private doctors, dentists, schools, employment or most freedoms we enjoy are not needed as the government is our mother and father and they always know what is best for us.

Compromise; it takes two to compromise. Why does the column call for compromise on only leftist issues? Compromise with the National Socialist leader Adolf Hitler did not work out very well for Prime Minister Arthur Neville Chamberlain or the world on Sept.30, 1938, did it? The concept of “Fuhrerprinzip” will only work in a socialist system, never in a free market democracy.

Never forget that socialism always fails over time and no socialist government, none, zero, has lasted as long or been as successful as our constitutional republic.

Compromise of course, but shredding the constitution, giving the government even more unfettered power? Never.

7 Comments

Harry Smit
December 20, 2019
Army Bob Another spot on column.... In all fairness to the editorial writer his disclaimer does state it will be very unfair. When people today speak of comprise it is always or at least tends to favor one side over the other. Negotiate might well be a more appropriate word than comprise . ..is there a difference....depends on how we define them. ( not according to the dictionary) but in the context of it's usage.. If you were to read the following: The United States negotiated a trade agreement. The United States compromised in a trade agreement. Which in your opinion made the United States the winner? To me ...the word comprise equates giving up something for something. The word negotiate in my mind is to accomplish what I want without giving up something as equally important as I want. Army Bob....in this " minions " opinion you couldn't be more right. There seems to be a real "wave" of Socialist ideology sweeping the Country. And they define comprise as you give and I take and everything will be fine.
0
Reply
Robert M Traxler
December 20, 2019
Mr. Smit, Harry, Thanks for the comment.
0
Reply
Basura
December 20, 2019
It seems disingenuous to hold up the Third Reich as an example of socialism. I know the name socialism is in the formal name of the Nazis, but that was not what comes to mind when I think of socialism. My tendency is to think of most states as operating with a blend of socialism and capitalism. Some are more slanted toward socialism, like the countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands. Others tend toward purer capitalism. Our country has relatively free markets, yet we had programs like Social Security and Medicare, as well as Aid to the Disabled and Blind. We support our farmers - as well we should. Some think we need more government, and some think we need less. We, through our elected representatives, negotiate and compromise, which results in some sort of messy blend. The process that has is more aptly described as functional rather than perfect. It helps me to make distinctions between economic ways of operating, and methods of governing, as in representative governance and dictatorships.
0
Reply
Robert M Traxler
December 21, 2019
Mr. Basura, Sir, thanks for the comment. Please read the "Green New Deal" and Senator Sanders platform, pure socialism. Documents embraced by most on the the American left. The Nazis were socialists and the USSR were socialists both had the word in their name and followed socialism in practice, you may not like it but it is a matter of history. Thanks again for the comment. Happy Christmas to you and yours.
0
Reply
Lynn Mandaville
December 21, 2019
Mr. Traxler, I withheld comment until this morning after reading what seems to be an less than thoughtful piece by you. It feels upon each rereading to be an angry, on-the-defensive reaction to the editor's piece that you reference. I have a few comments, not all negative. First, you are spot on about the repression of conservative voices on college campuses. I have been particularly distressed by this movement in recent years. Colleges and universities are supposed to be places where all sides are examined, and where attempts are made to understand where these differing ideas originate. To repress free speech is to limit the spread of knowledge and truth, especially when one does not like the others' truth. If liberals ever want to temper what they perceive as hate speech they ought to strive to seek why and where it comes from. This cannot be a one way street. Second, I take issue with your interpretation of "it takes a village" to raise our kids. I never once construed this concept to include, or be limited to, government in loco parentis. We raised our children in Wayland. One of the most appealing things about the street on which we lived was that we all participated in raising each others' kids. 13th Street was a village of caring neighbors who shared responsibility for raising all our kids. Liberals and conservatives alike, none of us believed the government should be raising our kids. It was the 13th Street village that did that. Finally, here's where I take umbrage at your remarks. You want to know what "the left" is willing to give up in making compromises on the issues of the Second Amendment, religious freedoms, and taxes on corporations and the wealthy. What has been taken away from anyone regarding the right to bear arms? So far as I can see, nothing. There is talk, but no definitive, restrictive action has been imposed. What's to give back? What religious freedoms have been compromised? You might be tempted to say that prayer has been taken out of public schools, but that would be a fallacy. Compulsory prayer is gone, but any kid can pray in school if he or she wants. Basic rules of non-disruptive conduct apply, but prayer is not banned. What other religious freedoms have been "taken" that need to be returned? The middle class is not experiencing relief from taxes, but corporations and the uber-wealthy are getting it in spades. What further cuts need to be made to "atone" for unfair taxation of the obscenely wealthy? One last thought. You talk about conservatives being shouted down by the "media mob." Isn't this a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Our president is the king of shouting down those with whom he does not agree. Check the video clips of him admonishing press members to shut up. Check the videos of him telling them to sit down because they are "fake news." Check the evidence of him treating the press with utter contempt when it's not warranted. It should not be part of a president's temperament to indulge in shouting matches, name-calling, or public bullying of anyone. A president should comport himself with dignity and restraint, particularly in the face of rudeness toward him. That is the behavior of a statesman and a leader. Can the press do a better job of handling themselves? Sure. But whose job is it to be the better man? When the president can't be the better man there is little legitimacy to criticizing a frustrated press. Thanks for your comments, Mr. Traxler. They help me put my thoughts in better perspective. Peace.
0
Reply
Robert M Traxler
December 21, 2019
Ms. Mandaville, Thank you kindly for the comment. You asked, "What has been taken away from anyone regarding the right to bear arms?" Indeed a good bit, I must register my pistol in our County, many states ban many types of weapons, the government keeps records of all the firearms I own through the Federal Firearms licensing program. Restrictions on types of firearms, length of barrels, even color are common, the capacity of the magazine, the overall length and many more are regulated, Federal, State, County and local governments all restrict our rights. In New York City licensed weapons could not be removed from the place it was registered as being kept without violating the law, the Supreme Court is looking at that one. Many state and city governments make it so expensive and cumbersome people are not able to afford a firearm. If I did not know better I would think you do not like President Trump. Our friends in the media have a long history of being unbalanced in coverage of left and right, I ask you to look back at President Regan's coverage as proof. Believe it or not life did not start with our Presidents election. Thanks again. Peace Through Strength.
0
Reply
Don't Tread On Me
December 24, 2019
Army Bob, to respond to the clueless concerning the obvious is futile. The more "educated" they are does not mean they are not mentally challenged. Don't waste precious time on dullards.
0
Reply

Post your comment

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading