"Enthusiasm for Compromise"
The KC Star continued its string of poorly-thought-out endorsements today, choosing anti-gay, anti-hispanic Klumb over progressive Jolie Justus for the 10th Senate race. What about Justus did they not like - what was it that Klumb has that she doesn't??
The Star proclaims: "Justus is a pro bono attorney with compassion for the vulnerable, but she lacks enthusiasm for compromise, which is critical to getting things done." Alright - thanks for making it clear.
To be an ideal progressive politician, according to the Star, you must be enthusiastic about compromise. The Star disagrees with James Russell Lowell, who wrote that "Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.”
I don't want my state senator to be eager and enthusiastic about compromising her beliefs, and supporting anti-human rights legislation. I don't want a Jason Klumb down in Jefferson City enthusiastically compromising my strongly-held beliefs in the name of expediency. I most definitely want my State Senator to, in the phrase of the Star, "lack enthusiasm for compromise."
Justus is a smart, savvy person. She will know when a deal is necessary, and she can out-smart and out-maneuver greedy right-wing zealots. But she will use compromise as a disfavored tool, and that is why I want her to be my State Senator.
posted by Dan at 7/25/2006 07:10:00 AM
3 Comments:
Well, if it's any consolation, Star endorsements seem to be the kiss of death.
The 10th District needs a leader in Jeff City to champion the progressive (or at least anti-reactionary) agenda. Justus is bright, she'll recognize when compromise is needed for progress. But for Klumb to walk into the legislature bragging about his willingness to compromise - why would we even bother to send him to represent us?
That's odd -- the Left in this country complains that the problem with conservatives is that we are not willing to compromise because we are extremists wedded to an ideology.
Then, when it is suggested that the Left needs to be willing to compromise, there is outrage that anyone would suggest that they abandon principle.
Seems to me that what you really want is for our side to surrender.
RWR - Think real hard now - can you come up with any room between being unwilling to compromise and being ethusiastic for compromise? Like, maybe using compromise as a disfavored tool? As I suggest?
But I do like your idea of rightwingers surrendering. It would save a whole lot of money to be spent on campaigns.
Post a Comment
<< Home