June 06, 2011

It would be nice to have a nickel for every time this phrase has been used as an excuse for some proposal that was a supposed choice between a rock and a hard place. Even considering the relative worthlesness of a nickel these days, I'd have a tidy sum.

But what does it mean?

It means accepting a compromise. You get some of what you want, and someone else gets some of what they want. That works if both parties agree to what they're willing to give up and a mutually accepted "direction."

But what if one person doesn't agree? What if the "compromise" gives one person the real benefit and actually imposes an intolerable burden on the other? What if there simply is not a mutual "direction" at all?

What if you were going out the door to start your vacation, and suddenly were forced to take your mother-in-law along with you! She's got a lot of luggage and a big sloppy mouthed dog, so half of your own baggage won't fit in the car anymore and must be left behind.

You are still going on the trip, aren't you? What are you complaining about then? Your wife insists that you have to develop a better relationship with her, so this is "a step in the right direction."

How about if someone cornered you and said he was going to cut off your arm? Yikes! You obviously don't want that. Do you argue with him and finally compromise on having your arm merely broken? Is that a "step in the right direction?"

Depends on which direction you consider the "right" one, doesn't it? The compromise might satisfy the guy who wants to cut your arm off, or your wife with the insufferable mother, but that probably doesn't take YOU in the direction you wish to go, and certainly not without major negative consequences.

In politics, the "compromise" is pretty much one sided and the consequences to us ordinary people can be severe or even life threatening. And we, as individuals, seldom have any choice - at least not once the lady is in the car or the arm breaking begins.

In 2010, the Wyoming legislature considered a bill to remove the requirement for a "permit" to carry a concealed weapon (pdf). All of the usual restricted places were retained, and it was looking good except for an "amendment" that would have ultimately given greater power to police to stop, search and disarm those otherwise carrying "legally," concealed and openly.

Many people were prepared to accept that compromise, but some dug in and worked to defeat the whole bill when it became apparent that the amendment would not be removed. Those who fought that bill were greatly abused and vilified. There was a lot of talk on gun rights message boards and blogs about this bill being "a step in the right direction," and how the "bad" parts of it could have been fought and removed later. They seemed to fear that this would be the one and only chance to be rid of the permit.

In the 2011 session, the legislature passed a fairly clean bill to eliminate a requirement for the permit (pdf). This only applies to residents and, of course, excludes all of the many kinds of "prohibited persons" who are forbidden to even touch a gun. All of the other amendments proposed were defeated this time.

What would have happened if the first bill had been accepted and passed into law? Could the legislature and law enforcement agencies have been pursuaded later to allow the dangerous and totally unnecessary amendment to be removed?

We'll never know now, of course. But I'm glad we didn't accept that "compromise," though this bill certainly has a few problems. We are still prohibited from carrying concealed into a great many places, even though open carry is perfectly legal there, except on "Federal property" or into a jail.

So, what do you think? What is a "step in the right direction," and what is an arm breaking compromise you might well regret?

There are no perfect answers, of course. We must decide for ourselves, based on the best information we can get, case by case. Just don't let anyone tell you that your only choice is between the amputation and the broken arm.