The Principle of Practical

Most disagreements can be characterized as a fight between the principle versus the practical. Consider this short list:

Principle	Practical
…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 2nd Amendment	The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country. Source:   washingtonpost.com
Irresponsible behavior was rewarded, failure was bailed out, and the innocent -- people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the banks -- suffered Read more: upi.com	Congress wrangles over how best to avoid financial Armageddon Source: economist.com
Corporations should be protected by the Bill of Rights.	Corporations having the same rights as people leads to many unintended consequences like too much political influence.
We shouldn’t put any more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the planet can naturally remove.	If we suddenly curtailed all air pollution tomorrow, our economy would be ruined and lots of people would suffer and die.
Cutting down trees is bad.	Much of the US is actually over-populated with trees and thinning them would result in better fire control and more water. Source: whitmanpioneer.com

The conflict in many of these situations arises from attempting to apply a principle to a real situation and having to deal with the reality and unintended consequences of a decision. During the financial crisis in 2008, our lawmakers were scrambling just to contain the problem, so they went with a very imperfect solution. One reason many absolutely hate TARP is because it violates many of our own principles. Most notably is the principle of fairness, which I believe most of us hold.

Ron Paul may be one of the most principled politicians in US politics, and vocally so. He makes the case for extremely principled decisions with this quote:

“I argue the case that if 1 percent of the people need food stamps, you give up 100 percent of the principle”

Source: esquire.com

He applies this logic to many areas, leading the House of Representatives in no-votes. Source: thepoliticalguide.com.

Principle isn’t a bad thing to have at all. It would be impossible to create any framework for government (or business for that matter) without a set of guiding principles. However, we get some pretty absurd outcomes when we follow principles blindly. The gun regulation debate illustrates this. In principle, the government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating guns. But, with such huge problems with gun-related crime, some latitude seems necessary. This is where the practical part comes in.

Congressional approval is abysmal, at around 13% (source: gallup.com). One major reason is the lack of compromise (source: cnn.com). This is where acting solely on principle breaks down.

Ron Paul’s characterization of giving up 100% of the principle isn’t right. Principles can be guidelines instead of absolute rules. Allowing for no compromise will ultimately lead to stagnation as congress can’t agree on anything and there is no path to coming to agreement.

I’m not arguing that we should abandon principle, or allow for the degradation of our rights. But, I am arguing that if we do something that is a compromise on our principles, we understand why that is and strive to improve. Congress is an easy target, but disagreements with principle vs. practical happen all the time. Unfortunately, all too often this becomes an impasse due to the rigidity of the principle.

I think we all need to recognize that our principles are very important, but there is always the reality to consider as well. Doing something outside of your principles isn’t necessarily bad if you understand why that happens and treat those principles as goals to strive for.