Sometimes compromise is necessary. Sometimes compromise is a noble thing.
But sometimes standing on principle is necessary. Sometimes compromise is evil.
David Limbaugh (Rush's brother who is a gifted columnist and Christian thinker) has written a powerful commentary on the difference between the two that is totally worth the read.
Limbaugh's crucial point not to be missed regarding compromise is this:
...it is sometimes necessary for even highly principled politicians to compromise -- in those cases when the compromise is better than the alternative. That is, gridlock is not always better when existing legislation is worse than compromise legislation that could improve on the status quo.
This is an excellent point. The foolishness that says, "the American people just want politicians of both parties to get along and come together to accomplish something" is nonsense.
Sometimes - many times - the American people want the politicians of both parties to present their ideas for the direction of the country as best they can, then let the people speak through elections as to who has the best ideas. That means one side wins, and one side loses.
Democrat leftists have realized that they seem to always lose that battle of ideas, and so they have set up this fool's game of demanding compromise from conservatives. It's their way of getting a piece of the power pie that the American people have denied them on election day.
Conservatives are foolish not to realize as much.