Apr

27

The Art of Political Compromise

April 27, 2008 |  Tagged , , , , , |

Or, how to use the political process to promote your personal convictions without compromising your principles.

I’d like to preface this blog with a statement about my position on life. I’m solidly pro-life. I believe abortion is always wrong, except to save the life of the mother. I’m also opposed to euthanasia and stem-cell research on fertilized eggs. I’ve been a board member of two Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

I often find myself engaging in a discussion about political compromise. There are those on both sides of the political landscape that believe they should never support a political candidate unless he or she agrees with them on every point. Any deviation from strict adherence to doctrine puts that politician outside the camp. I call these voters Single Issue Values Voters. I wrote a blog about them and their influence over the Presidential primaries back in February.

This issue has come up here in Colorado. The Denver Post has an article about two pro-life groups that have raised some concerns about Colorado Senatorial candidate Bob Schaffer. The most troubling statement in this interview was made by Steven Curtis, the head of American Right to Life Action, an offshoot of Colorado Right to Life, and former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party:

The pro-life movement will no longer give a pass to candidates like Bob Schaffer who look the other way when Chinese women are forced to abort their children.

Curtis went on to say,

As a die-hard pro-lifer, I have a problem with supporting any government that allows those atrocities to occur.

There is an excellent blog at Shaffer v Udall about these comments by Curtis. Be sure to read the comments after the blog as it gives more insight into the issue.

I’ve found many conservatives that believe supporting or voting for a candidate that does not support their position as completely as they do would violate their principles. The Denver Post addresses this in their article linked above.

Founded in the early 1970s, Colorado Right to Life is considered a rogue organization by some abortion foes for its all-or-nothing approach to overturning Roe vs. Wade, the court case that legalized abortion in 1973.

Groups such as these make themselves irrelevant as can be seen in the following statement.

The group, which estimates membership of more than 5,000 people, was kicked out of the National Right to Life organization after attacking Focus on the Family founder James Dobson in an argument over a court ruling on late-term abortions.

This group has lost political influence, and is not only marginalized by their opponents, but also by many of the groups that share the majority of their agenda. They think themselves pure because they only support candidates and initiatives that are completely in agreement with the positions they take. Their positions are so extreme, that no one else supports them fully enough, and therefore they end up nothing more than the man in the park on a soapbox to which no one pays attention.

Politicians, legislation, and initiatives are nothing more than means to an end. Politicians know that to get anything done, they will need to compromise with competing interests. Those that learn to do this successfully will themselves be successful. Those that do not will find themselves on the outside looking in, with little or no influence with their peers. This means that progress on issues important to us will be realized in incremental steps; they will never happen all at once.

Fortunately, there are other pro-life groups in Colorado that realize that Bob Schaffer is one of their best allies. Schaffer fights for the pro-life cause at every opportunity, when he knows he can win. Jim Pfaff, President of Colorado Family Action calls Schaffer aconsistently a pro-life legislator. Connie Pratt, president of Colorado Citizens for Life, says about Schaffer,

It is objectively untrue and simply irrational to argue, as some are apparently doing, that Schaffer is not sufficiently pro-life.

Supporting Schaffer does not compromise my principles, rather it reinforces them. I’m no less pro-life than I was before I supported him, and I’m glad for every fight he takes on to protect life. For those that he does not, because at this time they are unwinnable, I’ll be right there with him another day when we can win it because of the previous progress we’ve made.


Comments



1 Comment so far

  1.    The Art of Political Compromise · Mugdave on April 27, 2008 1:39 pm

    [...] CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI often find myself engaging in a discussion about political compromise. There are those on both sides of the political landscape that believe they should never support a political candidate unless he or she agrees with them on every … [...]

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats