Give me resistance, not compromise

I would like to comment on the column by Mark L. Hopkins (5-1617) in which he advocates Congress moving forward by compromising on the larger most controversial issues. What is an acceptable compromise position on the issues he lists as examples: Repealing, not repairing, Obamacare while severely cutting Medicaid funding, effectively denying millions of health care in order to give a huge tax cut to the already wealthy? Or repealing Roe vs. Wade thereby ushering in the re-criminalization of abortion?

Or defunding and cancelling development and implementation of renewable energy technology while increasing the burning of larger amounts of climate disrupting coal and petroleum? What does the compromise position between doing or not doing these things look like?

Fortunately, Mr. Hopkins gives us an example. He praises with enthusiasm Daniel Webster and singles out as especially commendable Webster’s proposed compromise of 1850.

This compromise would have dealt with the issue of slavery or no slavery in the territories being newly formed in the vast area recently taken from Mexico (War of 1846-48) by “allowing some to have slaves, others not.” In other words, the Congress would compromise by designating parts of the U.S. where it was perfectly acceptable for one human being to own other human beings as property.

If this is compromise, Mr. Hopkins, give me resistance! DWIGHT L. OLSON Niland