We don't allow extremists to dictate to us what church we must attend. We don't allow someone else's "principles" to tell us that we have no choice but to support green energy, or save whales, or fight childhood diabetes. It's our choice, not theirs. If principles are promoted by negotiation and persuasion, well and good. Principles are a good and necessary thing until they cross the line and attempt to force others to adhere to them. At that point they're totally unacceptable. We've fought wars and spent billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives over the years because someone else's 'principles' attempted to dictate how we and others must conduct our lives. If principles are promoted by force, whether political, economic or military, that's bad. So this begs the question: Why do we accept this sort of behavior in the very people that we hire to conduct our state and national affairs? Why is it acceptable for a minority to impose their "principles" on the rest of the nation, at the nation's expense, when persuasion and negotiation fails them? The sort of behavior recently exhibited by "leadership" in our Congress amounts to a tantrum, but it costs us, the voters, bigtime in terms of economic losses, political good will, and international relations -- and we tolerate this in our "leadership?" "If you don't do it my way, I'll stop everything until you agree" is leadership? Stop the bus and let me off.
Jack L. Hickman