We seem to live in a cyclical pattern of extremism of gloom and doom and fleeting moments of hope and change. As I listened to the repetition of “the best deal we could get”, I was reminded of a quote from a friend from a neighboring state. He said their state motto, repeated by repairmen, mechanics, schools, churches, elected officials, and the general population was “you just have to learn to live with that.”
The combination of demand for instant gratification and the fall-back assumptions of “lame duck” acquiescence to election cycles do not foreshadow a doomsday graphic decline of our democracy. Compromise and appeasement are not synonymous, and both are tempered by subjective critique, with neither being a clear victory or surrender. Compromise comes from comparative positions of weakness, and rarely from the magnanimity of strength or wealth.
Idealism is expressed in euphemistic absolutes of universal acceptance. However, idealism with multiple voices of diametric obstinacy is an ill-defined impasse. Things that we universally designate as values or rights flourish best in an environment of sharing, but rarely prevail in competition for things indivisible or endangered. The philosophical concept of synthesis, or any viable position between thesis and antithesis, does not find its voice in diametric confrontation. For example, the conflict between a progressive proposal and the inflexible obstructionist has an obvious identifiable idealist and villain. However, if the proposal is framed as a conflict between reckless abandon and the austerity of tradition and good judgment the roles are reversed. Much of the debate about the arrogance of power and the fragile transition to a position of weakness has been either defense or apology for bartered conciliation of uncertain disadvantage.
Much of the debate fails in inductive and deductive fallacy. That which benefits or harms the whole applies to the individual, or inversely, each individual superimposes a personal insight for governing the whole. Historically, we have confused equality with equal opportunity. We often designate ourselves as either equal or unequal to others, and add sound-bite categories of non-substantive inequality. The tradition of blood, sweat, and tears for economic ascendency has been supplanted by non-productive speculation and preferential legislation. Some of which are designated as temporary and others designated as permanent, both subject to the will of a transitory legislature. A rising tide lifts all boats, with some quantifying contingency of weight of anchor and buoyancy.
The optimism of equality or advantage rises and wanes with our status of affinity for, or commonality with, those in power. In a democracy, the wheels of change roll slowly. The consensus of populism is usually a herd-like reaction to shared misfortune, void of ideology. Ideology ensues to assign causation of misfortune to the fortunate, while wealth continues to flow upward. In this cycle, the optimism of perceived advantage and the anguish of the disenfranchised is likely not in sync with political incumbency. Supply-side and trickle-down economics neither supply nor trickle. Denial of gratification is immediate; alleviation of suffering is cyclical or even generational.
Two analogies come to mind. Someone mentioned the truism that if two men ride on one horse, one sits in front and the other sits behind. This goes unquestioned until you consider who owns the horse, if it is he who feeds and grooms the horse, whether he bought or stole the horse, why the other man does not own a horse, and that riding behind beats the hell out of walking.
The second analogy is the dilemma of a poor fellow who by accident of genetics is four feet tall in a crowd watching a parade. He, in the biblical tradition of Zacchaeus, climbs a conveniently located sycamore tree for a better vantage point. The government, seeing the inequality of opportunity cuts down the tree and gives everyone a six foot ladder. I don’t know that either of these has any relevance to compromise or optimism.
As a liberal, one of several of labels which one might embrace or deny, I tend to be overly optimistic. My belief in the things I envision, is not diminished in that they have never been, or is it an indicator they will ever be. I can accept compromise when reality demands some reappraisal of seasonal optimism derived from choices of lesser options. I think all of us who hold adjudicate positions as unelected trustees of ethics and logic question any trade-off of idealism and pragmatism, which we demand of others, and for which we chastise our own.
Bill Peach's Random Thoughts 