I tend to concur with this assessment, especially in the area of firearms civil rights. There can be no position that will satisfy the Progressives short of total civilian disarmament. As soon as they enact one of their proposals for "commonsense gun safety regulations" that will "enhance public safety", they are back for more incrementalism because they just discovered one more thing they need to do, since the last thing didn't really "enhance public safety" like they claimed. This brief article lays out the ideological basis for incompatibility and the impossibility of "compromise".

Conservatism and Progressivism: Two Irreconcilable Worldviews

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/12/conservatism_and_progressivism_two_irreconcilable_worldviews.html

Contemporary conservatism and progressivism are not just two points along some abstract right-left continuum, but are utterly different and irreconcilable worldviews. It is possible to illustrate this point by examining each side’s understanding of two, long-hallowed words from the Enlightenment – “freedom” and “equality”.
.....

The progressive notion of freedom has nothing to do with freedom from government interference -- since government is itself the engine which must be relied upon to remedy society’s ills. Rather, progressives’ nod to the individual’s desire for freedom is the freedom from want (entitlements), sexual freedom (and the right to an abortion), and, most recently, the freedom of a self-defined and flexible identity (including being addressed by whatever pronoun suits you). Where the conservative surrenders freedom to long-established social standards in exchange for the freedom from governmental control, the progressive surrenders freedom to governmental control in exchange for a freedom from long-established social standards.

I suppose I should add an example of "compromise" regarding these two ideological viewpoints.

Let's take something close to home: public bearing of arms for self defense, most especially a firearm (though stun guns, expandable batons, certain knives, etc. are also banned).

What would the ideal "freedom" position be? For me it's clearly "permitless carry". The right to bear in public any tool I choose in order to exercise the natural right to self-defense without having to "ask" the government for "permission".

What would the ideal "progressive" position be? Total civilian disarmament, which would obviously mean no bearing/carrying of firearms by "ordinary citizens" in public.

So what does the "compromise" look like here in Hawaii? A law that makes it theoretically possible for a person to obtain permission from the government to bear arms in public, but de facto not one single person is allowed to lawfully bear arms in public.

How is that a "compromise"?

Thus the conclusion of the author of the piece above that characterizes "compromise" with the Progressives as "painfully naive and utterly futile".

Split up into territories.

Wait 5 years.  The progressives will be clamoring to come over the the conservative side within 5 years.

You and the author are totally correct; however, what is the solution then?

Kuleana

Hey, that's my question! 

I don't see any relief from the legislature. I don't see any relief from the AG. I don't see any change in the "progressive" makeup of the legislature in the foreseeable future (barring state bankruptcy, but even then people here would keep electing the same incompetent and corrupt party...). I don't see any relief from the local courts. I don't see any relief from the federal district courts or Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (though I support lawsuits in those venues despite the extremely high likelihood that they will ultimately fail). I don't see any relief from SCOTUS until Trump may appoint at least two pro firearm civil rights justices (and more to the federal court system as well. If we get 8 years of Trump and maybe 4 or 8 more of another rights-advocacy-justices-appointing president, the court system could be in good shape. Of course I'll dead by then so congrats to the winners of the future!). The most likely help in the near future could only come from federal legislation that would impose our civil rights on the recalcitrant state of Hawaii. That seems possible should a National Firearms Carry Reciprocity Act be passed and a National Suppressor Legalization Act, etc.

Despite my view that no relief will come from local politicians, I will continue to harass harangue communicate with them by email and phone and attempt to persuade them to 1. abide by their oath of office to uphold the constitutions, and thus 2. legalize my fundamental individual enumerated God-given/natural unalienable civil rights.

As I written on a number of prior occasions, I'm open to all suggestions. I'd like to have the option to do something "effective", but don't really know what that would be.