Established

Going back to yesterday, I have been disappointed that the president has not stuck to his ideals as much as he could have. The fact that he has been so persistent with some things, despite opposition, shows me that he has not completely lost those ideals, and I believe he is a good man, but I wanted more.

One thing I had not fully realized was how many obstacles there are. I was reading something about the Guantanamo situation, and the practical issues of moving the prisoners, and it is harder than you think it would be. No, you can't send them here. No, you can't transport them this way.

It's not enough reason not to persist, especially when you have real injustices happening, but when there are so many areas requiring attention, and each one is involved, I do sympathize with not getting everything done. I am constantly falling short of my own expectations, and they are much more modest. For that reason, when you have people who criticize anything and everything because of a single issue that is not addressed, I don't think they are being realistic.

There is something else that is a new consideration for me. Yesterday I wrote about how difficult it is to make changes that stick, because things seem to keep working their way back to the original state. This may be more than an unfortunate maintaining of equilibrium, but that the people who are benefited by the status quo not only have a vested interest in maintaining it, but also power to do it.

So even for an outsider coming into power, suddenly the old ways have an attraction beyond being entrenched, because now they are working in your favor.

It is interesting to me because I have been noticing recently that even with music, a lot of things break down into whether you are part of the establishment or anti-establishment. There are people for whom being a rebel is a big part of their identity, and people who look at the rebels and are personally offended beyond all reason.

There are some problems with this. First of all it assumes an enemy, regardless of side. Also, it's kind of a stupid way of looking at things. Not everything that comes from the establishment is bad. For example, a basic agreement on appropriate behavior for traffic, enforced by law, makes transportation practical and pretty safe. Even most of the times when it is not safe, it's because someone is not following the law. So rebelling against speed limits or traffic signals as an infringement on your personal liberty would be silly, and most people get that.

There are a lot of areas where the lines are less clearly drawn, so there is room for disagreement. Decisions then should be based on thinking about the effects: what do we get? what do we lose? If you are dead set against conformity, you could reject something good, and if you are dead-set against hippies you will reject different good things.

My tendency is to go with doing the right thing, but there are so many different interpretations of that, and some of the worst ideas out there are supported strictly because they seem so righteous. Being right comes down to love though; I know that.

The establishment and the anti-establishment both have room for a lot of awfulness, so no matter how different they may appear, there can be some surprising similarities. However, there really is a pretty clear distinction between loving and creating versus hating and destroying. That one's fairly easy to tell. And in this case, there is only one right side.