Realpolitik?

Auf Intellectual Conservative findet sich ein sehr lesenswerter Artikel von Steven D. Laib, der angesichts der vom Tea-Party-Movement den Linken um Obama bereiteten vernichtenden Niederlage die Frage behandelt, ob jetzt angesichts der geänderten Machtverhältnisse im Kongreß nicht doch ein Kompromißkurs angesagt wäre.

I recently received an email from a member of one of the Texas Tea Party groups in which he advocated compromise as the best tool for Republicans and Conservatives to take back control of politics. While compromise between Conservatives and Libertarians, may well be a good idea, and certainly possible, the author failed to distinguish between them and Democrats and the Hard Left. When I took him to task on this subject he essentially stated that realpolitik requires compromise to achieve its goals. Obviously, this man had not studied political history, or if he had done so, he had failed to recognize what he was seeing. Let's take a look.

The problem with compromise during the last half-century or so is that it almost exclusively involved Republicans supporting Democrat goals in exchange for those goals being moderated down. Consequently, the welfare state express was slowed, but not stopped or reversed. This left all the pieces in place for the Pelosi Reid Obama axis in 2008 to attempt the creation of an oligarchy the likes of which the American system was intended to prevent. (hier weiterlesen)

In der Tat: während Kompromisse zwischen bürgerlichen Parteien meist den Charakter von (um ehrlich zu sein: mehr oder weniger) fairen Verträgen haben, sind sie für die Linke, die von der Unfehlbarkeit ihrer Heilslehre überzeugt ist, nur vorläufige Mittel zum Zweck, der geradezu sprichwörtliche »Fuß in der Tür«, um diese auch gegen den Widerstand des Kompromißpartners bei günstiger Gelegenheit gewaltsam öffnen zu können. Dieser »Fuß in der Tür« bedeutet bei Linken immer nur: mehr Staatseinfluß. Regulierung. Fremdbestimmung. Also das, was zu den schon seit Jahrzehnten latenten, und nun jederzeit unkontrollierbar ausbrechen könnenden Problemen geführt hat. Laib hat völlig recht, wenn er schreibt:

Now the nation has reached the point where the rule must be "no compromise, no surrender, no retreat." To do otherwise would return mean a return to the established policies of the last fifty years in which the slow march to a national demise continues, regardless of who is running things.

At this time, we are at a point where action can still save the dying nation. Inaction will surely result in its death. Patience may be a virtue in many respects, but it is not when you have no time to wait. The only compromise that may be acceptable in the current circumstances is between the Conservatives and Libertarians with respect to what the first priorities must be. It appears that the compromise has already been struck with the realization that the one thing that has the greatest potential to kill the nation at this time is financial irresponsibility.

Aber versuchen Sie das einmal einem Linken zu erklären — es ist vollkommen hoffnungslos ...