Since we can have a civil conversation with , I guess it would be an exaggeration to say he has gone off the deep end, but most of his posts express his dislike for Trump, and he keeps himself busy writing posts about his dislike for Trump.
‘s posts can actually be interesting. Do Trumpsters Think This Is Their Civil War? provides ‘s assessment of the difficulty of compromise. He seems to be most concerned about the fanaticism of “Trumpian conservatives”.
These Trumpian conservatives literally worship Trump, yet none will admit to that. To them, whatever Trump is as a person, what he has done to create chaos, whatever he spouts in his tweets, whatever lies he tells, matters not because his agenda (what little of it he’s managed to get passed) is making their lives wonderful. In other words, to conservatives, the end justifies the means. (from here)
What are we to make of that? Apparently, has trouble grasping why anyone would support Trump, and the Conservative ideology is foreign to him. So I suppose that is why thinks compromise is impossible and assigns motives to Conservatives we would not assign to ourselves.
Why would someone be a Conservative? Each Conservative has his own reasons. Mine? I am a Christian first, then a Conservative. I am a Conservative because I put my faith in God, not government or a man. I don’t want to be pressured to render unto Caesar what belongs to God. Hence, I want the power of government as limited as possible.
It has been my experience that most Liberal Democrats see government as a powerful tool for good. Therefore, they think that pragmatism justifies using government as a tool to do whatever they happen to think is good. What they fail to grasp is the sinfulness of man, that power corrupts. What they fail to understand is that just because one group might like an idea, that does not mean others won’t rightfully oppose it. What they fail to accept is the fact that individual rights are sacred, that we belong to God, not our government. We have a republic, not a democracy, because an unrestrained majority can be tyrannical.
Does it make any difference whether it is one man or a majority of the People who have their foot on your neck? If we can imagine the difficulty of throwing off a tyranny of the majority, then perhaps we can understand the plight of the black men and women who were once enslaved in this nation. As long as the majority of the people actively denied them their rights, they had no where to turn except in prayer to God.
What does a republic require? Self restraint. Unless we respect our Constitution and keep our republic intact, we will descend into tyranny. Unless we love our neighbors and respect their God-given rights, why should we restrain ourselves? That is why I left a comment at ‘s post. Here it is.
In politics compromise involves at least four things.
- A deal that requires compromise. Donald Trump is our president. The election process we used to elect him is a compromise.
- A portion of the deal where compromise is possible. We don’t compromise our values. We compromise on procedures and material things.
- A process that both formalizes the compromise and enforces it. The Constitution provides those processes.
- Deal makers who will honor the compromise. This requires us to be honorable enough to elect honorable men and women to lead us. This requires us to be trustworthy and our opponents to trust us.
Why are we having a cold civil war? We are not electing honorable men and women. We are electing people who want power. Instead of electing people who understand that their job is to protect our God-given rights, we are electing people who think their job is to run our lives and spend our money. Because we cannot compromise, we are borrowing huge sums and spending that money, growing our nation’s debt for no good reason.
Consider the American Civil War. Decades before the war smart men assessed the situation and saw conflict as inevitable. Why? The slave masters would not give up their slaves. Instead, they insisted upon spreading that peculiar institution into the territories and beyond. Even the whites in the South who did not own slaves supported slavery.
Look at what it took to end slavery. That war ended 1865 and we are still suffering social repercussions. Was any compromise possible on slavery? Abraham Lincoln tried to find one, but South wanted their own way.
What is the fight about now? What is Trump doing that causes so much controversy? What are we fighting about that is so disruptive of our values that we cannot live and let live? Did you mention a specific issue? No.
The American Civil War began when Abraham Lincoln won the election, and the South would not accept the results. (from here)
What calls our cold civil war began in earnest with the election of President Donald Trump. Think about this, how the governor of California refers to his conflict with the Federal Government over illegal immigration.
Brown called the attorney general’s trip to California a political stunt and his description of California’s laws a lie.
“Like so many in the Trump administration, this attorney general has no regard for the truth,” Brown told reporters, adding that the laws were crafted with input and support from California police chiefs. “This is basically going to war against the state of California.” (from California governor says Trump administration waging war against state (yahoo.com))
The Federal Government establishes immigration policy. The Constitution clearly gives that power to Congress, but the state of California, under Governor Brown, insists upon making its own rules. When leaders insist upon having their own way and won’t compromise, how is compromise possible?
Here is the speech Attorney General Jeff Sessions made to law enforcement officers in Sacramento, CA. What did Sessions say that justifies what the leaders in California are doing?