At times, I couldn't be a more avid supporter of compromise.
But I am willing to face a simple truth: Regarding our position on a plethora of policies (but not all), there is no middle ground to be found--nor is middle ground to be created or even contemplated. Instead, it's worth it to stand our current ground on the left, with the full knowledge that stepping away would be to abandon the right side of history.
In the spirit of the holiday season, insofar as "reaching out" goes, we should be all for it, in the form of reaching out as civilly as possible to Republicans and nay-sayers and do-nothings (note the overlap) to persuade them that we are right and they are wrong. All that our olive branches need contain is logic--but our gestures cannot be shrouded by rancorous, unwelcomed rhetoric if we hope to persuade hearts and minds. But is such persuasion absolutely necessary?
As you will see with me below the fold, No. (Disclaimer: Due to popular demand, Rick Warren is not mentioned.)
Let me begin with a few thoughts on the right to gay marriage--a legal inevitability, a destiny fully extricated from the prevailing political whims of today.
Remember: If Republicans and evangelicals want to define marriage as between a man and woman, then so be it; their churches, after all, have no obligation whatsoever to marry gays. But as far as government policy is concerned, their personal opinions on marriage--whether scripturally based or not--are irrelevant. OUR personal opinions on marriage, too, are irrelevant. Despite the prevalance of the gay marriage "issue" in the public square, its ultimate fate falls fully outside of the political realm.
It is first and foremost a legal issue, after all, marriage being a "civil contract" created by the government which confers particular benefits. And despite the seeming snails pace of American courts in acknowledging it, no sound legal justification has existed--or ever will exist--for depriving two consenting adults, be they gay or straight, of the right to enter into the civil contract that marriage represents. There is no middle ground.
Justice delayed has been justice denied: but it's worth taking comfort in the knowledge that justice will indeed be delivered. This deliverance--the final word--I predict, will come from a Supreme Court whose direction will be shaped, in no small part, by two new justices bound to be appointed by our next Democratic president.
Aside from gay marriage, a host of other issues (although, to paraphrase Harvey Milk in the movie bearing his name, gay rights constitute more than an 'issue'--a way of life is at stake) are utterly uncompromisable. Abortion rights. Torture. Stem cell research. As we in the liberal blogosphere transition from seemingly perpetual minority to the brand new majority party, though we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves civilly, our role is not to seek compromise on our core issues.
After all, for far too long over the last eight years, our leaders have tried to "compromise", only actually to cave.
Over the next eight years, compromise simply cannot entail our fundamental values being compromised. Besides...compromise?! We...just, uh, won an election.
Okay, fine: Perhaps our stoic support of progressive positions has contributed to a caricature of us as far-left extremists. So it goes. But I say that our journey to this particular political philosophy began with a pursuit of intellectual balance. It's just that, in the words of the "law" coined by Daniel Okrent (the former public editor of the New York Times),
The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.
It's true that the deprivation of gay rights is unconstitutional and illogical. It's true that the criminalization of marijuana is inconsistent with the legalization of alcohol and cigarettes. It's true that the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba is among our dumbest, most counter-intuitive foreign policies. It's true that the invasion of Iraq was dumber.
It's also true that our outspokenness on such issues has contributed to the perception of crazed, extremist liberals that Bill O'Reilly calls Daily Kooks. As Okrent's law demonstrates, our "imbalance", or distinct tilt towards the liberal persuasion, is the simple result of reality's liberal bias. (Colbert was actually right on this one.)
So, Holiday Cheers to the pursuit of balance and truth regardless of the consequences; to the fulfillment and preservation of our constitutionally-protected rights; and yes, to a courteous, decent dialogue even with Republicans.
But just remember that on the core issues, we will not, and cannot, cede the ground of the "Far Left"--not even for the middle.