Commitment and Conciliation

The tension between political commitment and political conciliation is much on my mind these days. I find myself listening respectfully and sensitively to those who say we must express our opinions powerfully without going overboard and thereby putting off those holding opposing views. 

The new film "A Place at the Table" is a case in point. It's a pretty good film about the hunger crisis, and the scandalous fact that 50 million people in this country are unsure where their next meal is going to come from. But it is also a bit tepid, apparently out of fear of offending those who don't quite see it this way.

Another example once again comes from today's New York Times. Two incredibly well meaning people with strong backgrounds in advertising are organizing a campaign to curtail gun violence. At one point, they reject using an advertisement that cites data indicating that a gun in the house is 22 times more likely to be turned on an innocent person than to provide protection against an aggressor. Why do they reject this spot? "Too hectoring," and thus too alienating.

And, I suppose, we have the example of the President of the United States, who is often referred to as uncompromising, but who, in my view, seems to be constantly resorting to compromises and conciliations.  Which leaves us with questions as to how effective all this compromising and conciliating actually is.

My inclination is to move forward with fewer compromises, especially for things as urgent as hunger, gun violence, and universal pre-kindergarten. There have to be priorities. And, not surprisingly, these are some of mine. We need to stand for a few things that are unquestionably right, and then fight for those things without deprecating or making fun of opponents, but with a clear sense that what we demand aren't frills or desirable options, but absolutely necessary for our collective flourishing.