In an article titled “Why We Need Compromise,” former U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton wrote:
The responsibility of our politicians is to make the country work, to provide stability and an environment in which Americans can live in freedom and achieve their goals. In a nation as big and diverse as ours, in which people hold so many differing opinions, that means finding solutions to issues that allow us to work peaceably and productively together; and that means finding compromises.
Sadly, many Texans agree with this both nationally and locally, believing that the only workable solution to any controversial issue is compromise. They believe that if both sides are willing to make concessions, a happy medium can be reached.
When it comes to principles—and politics should be governed by principles—compromise is never workable. As the former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov once said, “If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, compromises on principles are the street lights.” The political history of Houston over the past thirty-five years demonstrates the truth of this statement.
Beginning in the early 1980s, statists—those who believe that the individual is subservient to the group—have put forth an ever growing list of proposals to limit property rights. In virtually every instance, those who were initially opposed to the proposals eventually compromised.
In this paper, we will examine three examples. We will see that compromise has nearly destroyed one industry, created economic hardships for others, and reduced individual liberty for all. While the examples pertain to Houston, the lessons apply to political battles in every jurisdiction.
Click here to download the entire paper.