Was just reading about some law, which, when it was first passed a couple of years ago was described by its sponsors as a “happy compromise.” The intent being, of course, was to lead people to believe that everybody’s best interests were taken into account, and the final product stands to equitably benefit all.
Compromise. Bleah. A compromise is an agreement between or among those capable of speaking out, and are actually being listened to. In short, those with
money influence. It does not necessarily benefit the greater good, since the greater number of people are often marginalized – unaware, ignored, or otherwise unheard.
Compromises can’t always be wrong, I guess, but these kinds of compromises are why have so many watered-down laws – originally bills which somehow, as they went through the
corrupt tedious legislative mill, wandered farther and farther away from their original intentions as the need to pander to various vested interests arose.
Not that serious, determined advocates are that thin on the ground. I have seen people unbending in their convictions and untiring in their efforts, only to be seen as idealistic, naïve, unrealistic, or even “noisy agitators.” As the others continue to wheedle and wheedle for these so-called “compromises.”
But still. We go on, working, waiting. “The defenses will hold,” as Aragorn promised Gandalf. The turn of the tide.