Our Reach Has Far Exceeded Our Grasp.

Our Reach Has Far Exceeded Our Grasp.  Robert Browning wrote, “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp; or what’s a heaven for?”  Most interpretations of this line that I have read take it to mean that man should always dream of things that are beyond immediate possession.  For me, this quote carries a different message; one that applies pertinently to our nation and its people.  It strikes me that our reach is best reflected in some peoples’ opinion that basically any type of action or behavior can be characterized as acceptable or possible if it fits neatly within an agenda.  It also strikes me that our grasp is best defined as the fundamental basics of compassion, fairness, common sense, and the pragmatic rules of finance.

It seems that the use of the terms unacceptable and behavior in tandem is simply not acceptable in today’s high tolerance society.  But the reality is that there are, in fact, some actions and some types of behavior that require passive tolerance without accompanying tacit approval.  The LGBT community demands various things, but foremost among them is the admission by those who are opposed to their lifestyles that they (the LGBT community) are morally equivalent to traditional, heterosexual lifestyles.  And, by the way, it is required that this admission must be made in a very prominent and public fashion.  I have always believed that regardless of an individual’s moral code on sexual orientation, the majority of people are happy to live and let live, reserving their moral judgment for personal consideration and higher authority.  But we have reached a point where it is deemed insufficient by some to simply tolerate another person’s lifestyle choices without rendering a public moral judgment, an open affirmation of approval.  A lack of that moral proclamation, or even one that is considered by some to be intolerant and insensitive, is considered to be the equivalent of hateful bigotry.  In these instances, our grasp to live and let live should be adequate while acknowledging that our reach to judgment is wholly inadequate.   If businesses or corporations believe so strongly in the right of transgender individuals who represent a fraction of one percent of our population, then rather than foisting uncomfortable and inordinate behavior on the rest of the population in order to accommodate transgenders, they could simply leave the status quo in place for most people and build new facilities solely for transgender use. 

The nanny-state ambitions of the far left is another example of this tolerance zealotry.  The majority of people who pay taxes and fund the operation of this government understand that there are some things that are best suited to government for administration and therefore must be funded.  The private sector is a marvelous machine; but it can be terribly corrupt, exhibit ravenous greed, and fail to address all of the basic human needs that exist in our collective lives.  Understanding and maintaining the balance between government support and private sector freedoms is a delicate struggle; it has always been present and will continue to be fought into our futures.  The plain and simple fact is that when we have the freedom to succeed, we must also have the freedom to fail.  I have written before that the real tragedy of Obamacare is the fact that fully 75-80 percent of the legislation could have been passed on a bi-partisan basis, rather than the extraordinary legislative process foisted on this nation by the Democrats.  The 75-85 percent of the law would have insured mobility of plans, broken state line barriers to regional coverage, increased the age of dependent beneficiaries, insured certain people from being unfairly dropped from existing coverage, and might even have led to an improvement in this county’s health care industry.  This area of practical steps that could have gained support from both parties represents our grasp; that which could be reasonably achieved and financed given our tax-funded resources and many competing governmental needs.  Instead, we ended up with a reach that every single person who wanted health coverage ought to have it and if they cannot afford it, then it should be provided to them free of charge.  As we are now discovering in the real world, that premise was never feasible.  Our reach exceeded our grasp.

Whether we are considering government programs that support those in need, the number and location of national parks, or interstellar investments in NASA versus national transportation infrastructure; there must always be an understanding that reality will almost always dictate that our reach will exceed our grasp.  Our government cannot be all things to all people.  Our government cannot address all the needs of those among us who are less fortunate.  No matter how noble or well-intentioned our goals, we as a nation are limited in those things which we can sustain.  The role of government is take the limited resources made available to it by those who work and pay taxes, make decisions based on fairness and compassion, and simply decide which priorities can be addressed and which ones must either go begging for other benefactors or else wait their turn.  We as a people must always dream of, and strive for, a better tomorrow; where all needs are met, respect is mutual, and individual freedoms are cherished and embraced.  But that dream must be grounded in the realities that resources and assets will always be limited, there will always be winners and losers, and there will always be some who demand their own freedoms and liberties without respecting the freedoms and liberties of others.

Tolerance for all things is nothing more than passivity without principle.  As long as people live their lives without infringing on the rights of others to live their lives, our society should keep their moral judgments to themselves and get on with their own destinies.  But when those seeking tolerance also demand public moral approval, then a choice must be made.  As difficult and complicated as it may be, there is indeed a time and place in this world for intolerance; certain actions and behaviors demand it.   There are other actions and behaviors that may or may not beg for it, but that verdict is best left to a higher and wiser authority.  If we as individuals demand that verdict here and now, we must accept the fact that we are the ones who are insisting on the line being drawn between tolerance and intolerance.  A judgment not rendered is one that can be lived with; a judgment that is demanded is one that more times than not creates conflict.