"Politics is the art of the possible," I've been told, generally by those critical of my "absolutist" orneriness as they justify yet another compromise.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good," they are quick to point out.
What I've never been clear on is how people who refuse to push the envelope, and choose the path of appeasement and flexible principles, can consider themselves authorities on what's possible. That's determined by those willing to go to the wall, sometimes climbing over, sometimes breaking through, and sometimes ending up dashed and broken in front of it.
But they went to the wall.
And I don't know any mortal claiming perfection. But I also don't see where someone aiding and abetting evil can claim goodness. The axiom is misleading, and at the very least should be rephrased "The perfect is the enemy of the expedient," just so we're all clear on what we're really buying into.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good," they are quick to point out.
What I've never been clear on is how people who refuse to push the envelope, and choose the path of appeasement and flexible principles, can consider themselves authorities on what's possible. That's determined by those willing to go to the wall, sometimes climbing over, sometimes breaking through, and sometimes ending up dashed and broken in front of it.
But they went to the wall.
And I don't know any mortal claiming perfection. But I also don't see where someone aiding and abetting evil can claim goodness. The axiom is misleading, and at the very least should be rephrased "The perfect is the enemy of the expedient," just so we're all clear on what we're really buying into.