Thursday, February 23, 2012


In modern dialectics, each compromise is seen as a set up for the next conflict.

Progressives seek to engineer society with a controlled series of conflicts that progresses a free society through a series of conflicts into a totalitarian state.

The left will use nebulously stated positions to rise to power. Once in power, they force radical change on society (screaming all the while that the right never compromises). When the right compromises, the right ends up taking ownership of the new status quo and the left launches in on the next radical change ... screaming that the right never compromises.

The Founders of the United States were trained in classical reasoning. In classical reasoning, people sought to bring clearly stated positions to the table. When classical thinkers reached a compromise, they were expected to adhere to the compromise.

In the video below, Thomas Wood talks about how Madison, who wanted a strong central government, had made statements favoring a strong central government before the convention. After the convention he was a stalwart defender of the Constitution.

A Tale of Two Compromises

The Constitution of the United States had two notable compromises which I will call the Great Compromise and the Insulting compromise. The small states wanted each state to have equal representation. The larger states wanted the number of representatives based on the population of the people. The great compromise created two bodies of Congress. The Senate has two senators from each state and the House is proportioned by the population. This compromise led to something greater. It created a government with two legislatures that express different perspectives.

The Insulting Compromise came about because slave owners wanted to be able to vote on behalf of their slaves. The insulting compromise counted those people who were not voting as only 3/5th of a person. This insulting compromise did not lead to anything better. It is just plain insulting.

Compromises can lead to something better. The insulting compromise shows that the compromised position is not always good.

It is Impossible to Compromise with a Progressive

The Founders of the United States believed in the process of compromise. But compromise only works if the parties involved are willing to concede points.

The dialectics of Hegel and Marx are systems of radicalized conflict. One uses manufactured conflict to manipulate opinion to the desires of the ruling class. Sadly, it is impossible to engage in a system of compromise when only one half of the conflict commits to the compromise.

We have a president who was trained in the Alinsky Method (an updated version of Hegelian/Marxist dialectics) and discourse in the nation deteriorated.

The founding fathers were great statesmen. Madison shows classical reasoning at its finest. He went to the table with clearly stated positions. Conceded points to others at the table and committed fully to the compromises in the Consitution.

Unfortunately, this style of reasoning cannot work in a world ruled by the progressive mindset where each compromise is seen as a set up for the next conflict.

No comments: