Awhile ago, when I used to blog, I referred to some statements of Senator Barbara Boxer, in my brilliantly-named Kos She Said So, That’s Why. Specifically, I quoted Boxer’s vilification of the Republican Party wherein she states “they want 100 percent.”

I held that quote up to ridicule not because I think it’s untrue, but because Barbara Boxer: a) obviously considers the Democratic Party to be cut of superior cloth; and b) thinks that a party shouldn’t want 100 percent. It may be that notions such as the latter are frequently rattled off in the laundry list of principles held by the American left — a list that would be remiss to omit fairness, bipartisanship, inclusion, and diversity — but it’s in fact quite contrary to the spirit in which I (and, I believe, everyone else) elect officials to represent me in the government.

For instance, if there are three political issues on the table to be settled — let’s say personal accounts for Social Security, import tariffs, and the right to carry a handgun — I don’t pass over the candidate who can accomplish my wishes on all three topics, in favor of one who I know can net exactly one of three victories. I want to elect the first guy, who “wants 100 percent” of what I want, and who has the best chances to get it!

Not only is this a natural tendency, but it’s the way the political system was designed to work, and it’s wholly unrealistic to expect that someone would forgo what he feels is best, in the name of an intangible ideal like “fairness.” Taking it a step further, I would assert that, in cases where you have decided what course is best for the country, it spells failure in your responsibility as a citizen (or as a legislator) if you do not pursue all avenues in adhering to that course. In other words, if you content yourself with 80 percent.

Does this mean one should never compromise? Of course not. Compromise is an unavoidable feature of politics. Like strategically surrendering a piece in chess, giving ground temporarily or in a less important battle is necessary in the broader context of advancing the cause in the long term. Knowingly making these sorts of concessions isn’t taking a loss and calling it a day; it’s making a trade — 10 cents today for a dollar tomorrow.

These truths apply just as well to Democrats as they do to Libertarians or Republicans, or to people of any other political ideology. Senator Boxer is wrong to imply that the Democrats don’t seek 100 percent victory just as much as the Republicans — they do. When a Democrat points to a given example of “bipartisanship” or “reaching across the aisle” on the part of his party, rest assured that what you are really witnessing is a calculated compromise in the quest for the greater prize, or perhaps — rarely — a true abandonment of duty arising from misguided emotional ideals. If your Democrat insists that it’s a friendly nod toward “fairness,” remind him that while fairness is nowhere in the Constitution, the right to bear arms surely is — and give back nothing in pursuit of your 100 percent.