Reflections on West Wing
Thanks to Brian's mother, Marilyn, I am catching up (seven years late) with West Wing.
...wow...
I have been pulled through some very heavy thoughts here. Gay rights, gun control, capital punishment -- this was not a show to pull punches, to refuse to tackle crunch issues. But much more importantly, this is a show that has shown how difficult the decision process is in this country.
Two very important lessons I have been taking away from watching these programs are What Is Right Versus What Is Feasible and Learning To Pick Your Battles. Pablum truisms, neh?, but ever so difficult to truly manage.
Each of us, internally, has a code, a set of imperatives that we know to be True. Now whether these are innate or whether they are unculcated from our youth is a matter I will leave to others, but we hold them nonetheless. These are deep, touchstone beliefs, notions that we can never truly rid ourselves of, even if we ever wished to. Some of us have a few, some many; some have them close to the surface, some deeper down -- most of us are an admixture in this regard. But yours and mine may not exactly coincide. What then? Well, according to the rules that we have placed in our country's system, we vote on matters. 50%+1 vote wins; the other side loses. Again, sounds simple, but it isn't, because so many times a bill, an issue is decided through compromise, promises, backscratches, and vague amendments. How, then, are we to reconcile these laws with our innate sense of right and wrong? Sometimes we simply cannot. Equally, what gets that 50%+1 vote today may only get 48% the next time ... opinions shift, sometimes a whole seachange, and we wonder why we had the laws we did before. Does that mean the laws were wrong before? Does it mean the laws are wrong now? In the end, it is difficult to say.
This is where picking your battles comes in.
Democracy, by its nature, thrives on compromise, the striving for the middle ground. It is often difficult, hopelessly so, to see a middle ground on certain issues -- capital punishment, for example, leaves very little room for "middle ground". The problem is, though, you can wear yourself out if you try to crusade on every point. You may lose a major contest because you were struggling with a minor point. So eventually you have to let the other guy have his way, even if if galls you. That is never a pretty thought, never an easy pill to swallow. When you know something to be True and you are dealing with someone who knows, equally firmly, that it is False, it becomes hard to give way.
I sometimes wonder if a number of suicides in this country come from that inability to compromise.
So, Toby, you are a real mensch. I honour your hard, true stances. Is politics the world for you?
I just ask.
...wow...
I have been pulled through some very heavy thoughts here. Gay rights, gun control, capital punishment -- this was not a show to pull punches, to refuse to tackle crunch issues. But much more importantly, this is a show that has shown how difficult the decision process is in this country.
Two very important lessons I have been taking away from watching these programs are What Is Right Versus What Is Feasible and Learning To Pick Your Battles. Pablum truisms, neh?, but ever so difficult to truly manage.
Each of us, internally, has a code, a set of imperatives that we know to be True. Now whether these are innate or whether they are unculcated from our youth is a matter I will leave to others, but we hold them nonetheless. These are deep, touchstone beliefs, notions that we can never truly rid ourselves of, even if we ever wished to. Some of us have a few, some many; some have them close to the surface, some deeper down -- most of us are an admixture in this regard. But yours and mine may not exactly coincide. What then? Well, according to the rules that we have placed in our country's system, we vote on matters. 50%+1 vote wins; the other side loses. Again, sounds simple, but it isn't, because so many times a bill, an issue is decided through compromise, promises, backscratches, and vague amendments. How, then, are we to reconcile these laws with our innate sense of right and wrong? Sometimes we simply cannot. Equally, what gets that 50%+1 vote today may only get 48% the next time ... opinions shift, sometimes a whole seachange, and we wonder why we had the laws we did before. Does that mean the laws were wrong before? Does it mean the laws are wrong now? In the end, it is difficult to say.
This is where picking your battles comes in.
Democracy, by its nature, thrives on compromise, the striving for the middle ground. It is often difficult, hopelessly so, to see a middle ground on certain issues -- capital punishment, for example, leaves very little room for "middle ground". The problem is, though, you can wear yourself out if you try to crusade on every point. You may lose a major contest because you were struggling with a minor point. So eventually you have to let the other guy have his way, even if if galls you. That is never a pretty thought, never an easy pill to swallow. When you know something to be True and you are dealing with someone who knows, equally firmly, that it is False, it becomes hard to give way.
I sometimes wonder if a number of suicides in this country come from that inability to compromise.
So, Toby, you are a real mensch. I honour your hard, true stances. Is politics the world for you?
I just ask.