To properly understand the meaning of a spoken word, more often than not it is imperative that one first know the context in which it was uttered. Compromise is one such word where this always rings true. A teenage girl who lets her brother watch Monday Night Football on the family’s only TV, as long as he will allow her to watch “Dancing with the Stars” on Tuesday (for the record, I don’t know if “Dancing with the Stars” really comes on Tuesdays nights, and I’m too lazy to check) is an example of a good compromise. A husband who promises to go to the ballet with his wife if she’ll come to the NBA game with him is another. Those examples show maturity and unselfishness as well as the ability to share and communicate with others. We could all use a healthy dose of that brand of compromise. Bad compromise, on the other hand, is when a person abandons principles or ideals they know to be right and true, and in which they have professed strong personal convictions, to embrace a conflicting viewpoint. Bi-partisanship in politics is a good example of this. Politicians (thinking of you Mr. McCain) are forever assuring us that they are masters of reaching across the aisle, masters of bi-partisan compromise. That’s not a big selling point for me. I’m a conservative, and thus, I want conservative legislation passed. Conservative legislation isn’t generally passed by liberals. So, if a so-called conservative politician tries to woo me by claiming to have crafted some magnificent bill hand-in-hand with the left…color me skeptical. You see, to me, it means one of three things about said conservative politician: 1. He is a faux conservative, 2. He has no backbone and will quickly discard his belief-system if subjected to enough pressure, or 3. He is so influential, and so verbally masterful, that he was able to persuade all others involved to throw their core beliefs to the wind and accept his as gospel. Yeah, I don’t tend to put a lot of stake in number 3.

Therefore, I think it’s clear that compromise, depending on context, can be both a good and bad thing. Pretty straightforward. However, here’s where it gets dicey. Here’s the shade of gray. Here’s the question. Are there scenarios where we should, and must, compromise our principle beliefs to a degree for the common good? If posed this question unexpectedly, my knee-jerk reaction answer would be a resounding no. Never, right? Well, though it is most assuredly true that we should never knowingly lend our support to any ideals directly in contrast with our own, sometimes it is in our best interest to embrace certain individuals who, on some points, do. In fact, I propose to you one circumstance in which it is essential…voting in presidential elections.

Think about it. If you have decided to adopt the high standard of only voting for a candidate with whom you agree all the time on every issue, if you want to vote, you had better hope that you are running. Compromise is a necessary component when electing political leaders, and I believe, deep down, we all know this. I also believe that most of us are pragmatic enough in our thinking to accept it and implement it when choosing a candidate to get behind. So then, if us voting at all means having to surely compromise on something somewhere, the matter at hand isn’t whether to compromise or not to compromise…no Shakespeare, that is not the question…the question is: to what degree are we willing to compromise? Where do we draw the line?

Allow me, if you will, a personal example. On the issue of immigration, I am a secure the borders, build the fence, no jobs or social services for illegals, and certainly no amnesty, kinda guy. John Hawkins, of Right Wing News, equally shares my sentiments. John McCain, though, is a squishy, pro-amnesty, pro-guest worker program believer, yet I am still supporting him for president. Here, John explains why he isn’t…citing McCain’s stance on immigration as the reason (it should be noted that Hawkins recently has reversed his position and is now supporting John McCain). John Hawkins and I don’t differ at all our immigration position; where we vary is on the degree in which we are willing to compromise that position by voting for someone with a different view.

As previously opined, my philosophy on voting is one in which I will always vote, and I will always do so for whichever candidate best represents my values, no matter how far off that may sometimes seem. Now, being that this is my personal creed on voting, I naturally reserve the right to change it as I see fit. A glass half-empty outlook on America’s future might give me grounds to amend my stance sometime soon. I’m a glass half-full guy, though, so for now I see my attitude on voting as a practical one. Here’s the point: we will undoubtedly have to compromise something to lend our support to any presidential candidate in any election. There is nothing wrong then, in this one, with settling for the lesser two evils. Sure, the left doesn’t have to concede much to support Barack Obama, as he is a far-left politician, and I admit that it doesn’t seem fair since we on the right will have to begrudgingly make the trek all the way to the middle in order to pull the lever for John McCain. However, the common good of our country is best served when we, we who still subscribe to true, real, Christian, conservative values, help elect the candidate who most closely mirrors them. There should be no question that given our choices, John McCain is that candidate.

So, where do I draw the line past which I’m not willing to compromise? I can’t speak for the next election, but as for now it’s directly to the right of Barack Obama, and I sincerely hope that many other like-minded Americans will step up and toe that line with me. Sure, it’s a compromise, and it sucks, but remember…some compromises are good, some compromises are essential. This, my friends, is that kind of compromise.