Editor,
In response to columnist Gordon Weil’s call for more compromise and less partisanship.
It depends upon the conditions of the compromise.
It is always possible to negotiate a compromise on certain issues and policies; however, asking an opponent to betray his/her fundamental core principles in pursuit of “bi-partisanship” is unreasonable and disingenuous. It should never happen.
For example, one fundamental core belief of most American citizens is that the Federal government’s primary responsibility is national defense and protection of our borders. An overwhelming Electoral majority elected President Trump based upon his campaign promises, the cornerstone of which was the construction of a southern border wall. For these 63+ million voters the issue is settled – no more debate over costs, effectiveness, need, etc. Just. Build. The. Wall.
Many current Democrat leaders actually voted this wall during the Obama and Bush administrations. Why they now oppose it and demand that President Trump abandon his campaign promise is bewildering and reeks of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, on numerous occasions President Trump has offered the Democrats a reasonable and compassionate compromise: permanent residence and a path to citizenship for DACHA recipients and a million-plus illegal residents in exchange for the funds to build The Wall. This compromise solves two important problems and does not require anyone to betray a core principle. Inexplicably, the Democrats rejected this compromise.
Why?
Compromise is possible when both parties and the president are willing to respect their opponents’ core beliefs and values.
A side note: The proper forum to rebut a letter to the editor of the Journal/Tribune is here in the “LETTERS TO THE EDITOR” section of the Journal/Tribune. Mailing an unsigned letter via the USPS in an envelope with no return address to one’s political opponent is … unneighborly.
Paul Israelson
Biddeford
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
