Is the administration prevailing on the greater fight?

[Go2Peace]

I understand the desire to find ways to compromise and try and lessen the "hits". I understand that compromises have to occur, especially when the oposition is so radical and has done such a good job of confusing the public.

But in the process, in the way the administration is going about this, are we losing the GREATER fight? Our future?

What good does it do us if (in continually compromising) we do not make a strong case, and instead "fight" in the Republican's turf and allow their ideology to further dominate the discussion?

Do we then lose the fight for the future by falling prey to Republican ideology; trying to mold conservative based legislative ideas into a more "centrist" form? By not strongly protesting and making some stands for a different world view, does the administration save a few "hits" for the short run, but in the long run do terrible damage to any alternative worldview?

Republicans understand the importance of of presenting strong ideas. They took an extreme ideology only practiced by a few and placed it into the mainstream. The seeds of that ideology were being built even during the 70's and 0's when progressive legislation and laws were still more prominent that conservative. Yet their world view made great strides and we see the effects.

There is an entire science that explains how this works. We are in the midst of a cognitive/linguistic war, and they (Republicans) are beating us up and down. We have some heavy machinery, the fledgling, but not insignificant "progressive media". But not only does our leadership ignore them and not engage them, but they disparage them very publically, once again doing damage to one of the few linguistic counters we have, and reinforcing conservative ideology.

This path is seductive, but if it continues our leadership will further disarm the progressive message in a thousand compromises. So what if the President wins the next election, but in the process, Republican voices are allowed to rule even the Presidency (via compromise after compromise)? Where do we end up? With a few less dollars cut here or there, or a few protective legislations full of holes?

Is it really the best strategy?

The long term risk of such a strategy may well be a second term with a weak Democratic Presidency and majorities in both houses, followed by potentially 8 more years of Republican dominance of all three branches.

That could make it 2024, and 30 years with few serious ideological challenges to extreme conservatism. Do folks think that tradeoff would be wise?