I'm reminded of the difference between politicians and activists today.
An activist supports a view or views and will not compromise that view in any way, because it is that view that they desire to achieve.
A politician believes that in compromising one view they are able to find gains in another venue. Give a little on one issue, get a little on the other.
I believe that politicians tread water, in a series of steps forward and back on a variety of issues, in an attempt to maintain power and appear as though they are helping their perceived constituents.
I believe activists may indeed at first lose to the status quo, and that the road to their goal is indeed much steeper than the politicians' to their goal. But I also believe that the activist will eventually get there and will receive an unadulterated version of their goal instead of the bastardized one that the politician gets.
What would the civil rights movement have been if we only compromised? Would slaves have been freed had we only compromised? Women have gotten the vote? Social Security had FDR compromised with Republicans? The end of DADT had we compromised? No, we wouldn't have. We would have had half-assed versions of these things, trod water, and made no effectual changes at all.
That's what happens when we compromise. That's what happens when we play politics with basic human rights and dignities.
