We are all painfully aware of the congressional bickering and gridlock, which has resulted with the congress not passing a budget for almost three years (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/no-budget-no-pay-congress_n_1345454.html). Also, many liberals are frustrated by the slow pace at which we respond to global warming, or improve rights for minorities, sexual minorities in particular. Some of the few people reading this post, might be aware of the recent changes in European politics, which are fueled by the rising new parties and increased disagreement in national parliaments. Many question the ability of our governments to function with all this disagreement, and we all can recognize the low intellectual level of most debates on almost any subject.
In the end, we are all to blame of the status quo, but perhaps it need not be so. Perhaps we could work better on some things. None of this discussion is novel in any sense, but it perhaps reminds us of some principles that I notice are useful in every day life.
A classic example of intense debates are legal battles. In order for the community to maintain peace and enforce a sense of justice, we need a judicial branch and courts to decide on law. In the US, as most know, there is a system of federal courts, which mostly address matters of constitutional law and federal law. Naturally it is very hard to decide some hair-splitting matters, such as whether something is a constitutional right or whether the US can without due process kill it's citizens. Often these decisions amount to intense public debates (just to name a few recent decisions: striking down Proposition 8, Citizens United and a decision regarding the ministerial exemption). However, the courts resolutions do not steep to the low level of public debate and succeed in giving a very detailed and well-argumented resolution.
Take for example the proposition 8. The public debate involved intense discussions of a supposed human right to marry, and a right to love, suicides of LGBTQ teens and the "gay agenda" which is destroying supposedly this nation. However, the decision of the court of appeals of the 9th circuit mentioned none of these in their decision (http://www.scribd.com/doc/80680002/10-16696-398-Decision). Perhaps it is because of this, that they actually managed to make a decision. Like many other decisions, this decisions emphasizes, that the courts should decide matters of constitutional law always on the narrowest way possible.
In this case, the court explicitly did not comment on whether marriage was a constitutional or an inherent right, also they did not conclude whether laws banning same-sex marriage in other states were unconstitutional. The decision was narrowly restricted to arguing, whether the law in California was only intended to discriminate and lower a status of a group without any rational reason. The court concluded, that this was indeed the case, but not by arguing that marriage was a right. Instead it states, that the only effect of the new law was to strip a group of people from the dignity and recognition of their relationships, while maintaining equal rights. As the court concludes: "The Constitution simply does not allow for 'laws of this sort'."
The courts are forced to make a decision on a matter, and perhaps this incites them to decide on the narrowest way possible. In public debates, however, we are allowed to make the wildest claims imaginable. But perhaps, we should instead try to aim for as narrow as possible resolution and conclusion, which both sides would find agreeable. Take for example global warming and renewable energy. Often these are intensely argued, and many still today deny human induced climate change. This should not impact our discussion of renewable energy, though. It is easy to point out, that the oil reserves of the world are rapidly decreasing, and oil prices are increasing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska). At the same time our dependence on foreign oil poses a national security threat. Other options such as coal are objectionable due to there clear impact on the environment. Thus it is clear, that we need to do something about using less oil. I don't believe that this is too debatable.
Another factor which makes many debates painful, is the lack if listening. In a discussion each party should have the time to talk, and should respect the other party that much to bother to listen. I believe part of this problem, is the belief that the opponent must be somehow dumb to actually believe what they believe. This claim is common among people in the left wing. It is much easier to conclude your own superiority, than to actually try to understand the argument that you disagree with. And often, this argument can actually be understood.
Take for example the often very radical comparison of homosexuality with pedophilia. Now, I should state, that I am an ardent supporter of gay rights. But, I do understand the argument presented by the religious right, asking where do the limits go. And so do the liberals, even if they don't admit it. Read for example the excellent discussion in the comments of the column on pedophilia by dan savage ( http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=12927907). With this discussion in mind, I would argue, that we should not find Rick Santorum to be stupid, which he is not. I do disagree with him, but he does honestly represent the sentiments of very many people. And in order to understand these people, we should listen to Santorum and engage in a discussion with him and his supporters. However, I should say, I believe economic matters are currently more important than social ones, and would hope for Romney to be nominated by the GOP.
At the end of this discussion, I return to a claim I have presented: "Stupid people don't exist". I strongly believe in this. However, my faith is occasionally questioned. It is hard to believe that some people just don't get it. Even with all the understanding, compromise and listening, we find ourselves talking with people who simply sound like idiots. But even in such situations, I believe we can maintain a moral high ground and strive to understand the other side. With understanding we increase social cohesion. Too often violence and terrorism is a result of a lack of understanding. In the US there is a dramatic split between the north and south, the religious right and extreme left. I am glad, that most people find themselves in the center. In Europe the balance is between nationalistic parties and more liberal open-minded parties. We need urgently to find solutions to among other matters immigration, public debt, heath-care and public security. I would hope we take a "judicial" approach to solve these problems by not being too extreme and trying to find compromise.
No comments:
Post a Comment