I have a simple question for my fellow Americans. When can you trust that your neighbor isn’t out to subjugate you, kill your grandparents, and/or make animals suffer needlessly? Put another way, when can you trust that the average person, your neighbor, a conservative, a liberal, isn’t morally bankrupt or evil?
The answer is: January 11th, 2011 and no less so today, than 30 years ago, or 130 years ago.
The average person and in fact the by far vast majority of people, whether they are Catholic or Jew, Protestant or Hindu is/are raised, with ethical ideals as foundational points of instruction. We are all taught to be kind, fair, and honest, to not steal, to not tread too heavily upon the desires and dreams of our fellow human beings.
Liberalism, at its core, is the idea that I do not know my brother’s footsteps, and before I judge his actions I should walk a mile in his shoes. It is a belief that as long as what you are doing isn’t hurting others then you should be permitted to do so, i.e. to be “liberal” in my allowance/tolerance of the life and conduct of others. It also, at its core, is the belief that government should not intrude upon the liberty of the average person without due and justifiable cause.
Conservatism at its core is the belief that people should be self-reliant. It is the belief that the human spirit should be allowed to soar to whatever heights it can achieve. Generally, it is also the belief that change should be cautious rather than embraced without question, and coincidentally also believes that government should not become too large and too powerful in the way it intrudes upon our daily lives.
Both sets of principles have extraordinary merit, and if looked at objectively, differ only slightly in their overall goals. It is fair to say that the key difference between the two ideals is that one believes in a “common good” approach to governance, while the other believes that governance shouldn’t prevent anyone from achieving and thus accumulating, whatever they can aspire to achieve. One does suggest governmental remedies to social issues (as a result), while the other believes that governmental solutions are artificial and the market “will out.”
This difference is a matter of opinion and to a degree objective fact, but whether my neighbor thinks the government is already too big (in regards to social spending) or I think it is too intrusive and too ready to be the military tool of special interests, is simply an opinion. It is an idea over which decent people can decently agree. This isn’t a question of enslaving 1/3rd of the nation’s population, it is a question about whether we believe government should be in business to help business (and presumably the nation as a result) succeed, or whether we think business uses government to improperly direct profits to those few who lead business. It is
a question of self-interest vs. most effective solution, but it is just that, a question with answers and facts.
When we instead delve off into calling vast swaths of the American electorate (and population) things like morally bankrupt, evil, stupid, seeking to take away our freedoms, etc.. we create charicatures which those among us with less ability to siphon out good idea from ugly rhetoric, believe to be true. They believe that liberals are god-hating idiots who are destroying our country or they believe conservatives are selfish, amoral pigs who’d gladly turn a blind-eye to death in other countries brought about by our wars.
Truly, these people may be slightly off-kilter in the first place, but that doesn’t excuse our creation of false images, of fomenting fears to the point that they feel no other option than to resort to violence. I’ve had my life threatened by people who presumably were more sane than the shooter in Arizona, and I am deeply concerned that we are creating a nation of hatred where those who may be only slightly off-kilter, rather than deeply disturbed like this guy in Arizona, will at least accept it is time to “resort to 2nd Amendment remedies” if not engage in them directly. I am deeply concerned our path is leading us toward another civil war, and this time not over slavery (or the perceived injury of denying slave-owners the right to continue), but rather simply instead over the fact that we disagree with one another about what constitutes fairness and the limits of government. We aren’t disagreeing with our neighbors about such obvious ethical facts as slavery, but rather about whether the government should be used as a tool to help define the line of fairness between labor and ownership or whether the government should be used as a tool to promote/facilitate the ability of business to seek the highest profit margin without regard to the impact on the people. We are very much a nation confused about what our fellow neighbors are really like, and we should not be. We are a nation almost entirely populated by good and righteous people.
The next time you decide to accuse someone of being callous, corrupt, dictatorial (or Nazi-like), think whether you really, truly believe that of your neighbor. If you don’t, then almost certainly it isn’t true of whomever you are saying it about. Nearly everyone has a decent heart, a good moral compass, and no one deserves to die for disagreeing with you. If you believe otherwise, then perhaps it is you, not they, who are dangerously extreme.
Well said, Penigma.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not necessarily agree that our nation is heading into a civil war, I agree that the concept of civil discourse has been forgotten by both parties. Contrary to what the Republicans may think, this last election was more of a "throw the bums out" vote, (and there were more democrats than republicans to throw out), than any set decision on whether to vote republican or democrat. I don't think that for most voters, it makes any difference. All politicians seem equally crooked to them, and to a certain extent, they're right.
Its truly too bad that it would be difficult if not impossible to form a third party that would have any hope of obtaining enough seats in Congress to make a difference. A third party which has elements of the republican (such as some of their fiscal conservatism), with elements of the democratic (i.e. some of their caring for human beings instead of corporations), would appeal to many people, I think. Better yet, a party which was interested in doing what was best for the United States, and not for the special interests who elected them to power. (ok.. I'll stop my hallucinations now, but it was a nice fantasy while it lasted).
The American People, though, are fed up with both parties, and part of what we see in the lack of civil discourse, is that frustration. Its not and excuse for it, just perhaps an explanation of part of it.