As I See Political War and Discussion

In my last post I suspect I was a bit less civil that I desire to be. While I did not call Ms. Coulter any names, I was a bit rough on her motives. I suggested that she only desired to “rally the troops” and suggested that her logic and ability to sustain an in depth argument were weaker than one would expect from such a nationally known figure. I regret the tone of the article, though I believe the critique stands. The question is: how much charity is one compelled to give to those who oppose your point of view? I mean, aren’t they the enemy? Isn’t this a war? And if so, can one imagine being on a battle field where the enemy soldier yells, “sorry” every time he or she fires his or her gun? Wars are not polite or charitable affairs. Should politics be any different that a war?

The last ten years or so our nation has been engaged in what has been called a “culture war.” Conservatives have generally prevailed over liberals but liberals too have scored their victories. The problem I have with it all is that it has become a war of attrition. Few, if any, actually pay attention to the other side, taking seriously their point of view. Few are persuaded they are wrong and even fewer seem to make the attempt to persuade. “They’re close minded and will not listen to reason” is the cry of both sides about the other. And with the multiplying of screaming voices reason gets drowned out altogether. And if this is a war of attrition, there is little hope of it ever stopping.

Let’s look at things from the liberals side for a change. A liberal is one who believes in the great ideas of the Renaissance. The power of human intellect and the assumption of the intrinsic worth of each person are powerful ideas. And from them modern culture evolved with its emphasis on freedom, democracy and technology. It was, no short not a bad place to start. In fact, ask the average conservative if he or she believes people have intrinsic worth and you will probably get an affirmation. Ask them if man is capable of bringing heaven to earth and you get a less robust agreement. Which is one of the basic distinctions between a conservative and a liberal.

In a liberal’s mind the place of truth is tenuous not because they do not believe in truth but because they do not believe that truth can be fully known or communicated. To a liberal person what truth we hold to be “self-evident” is “self-evident” only to those in the particular social group that accepts that truth. It is not that truth is relative but that our knowledge of truth is not certain. Since, along with the impossibility of full knowledge, liberals also believe it is impossible to get “ought” from “is.” This is a philosophical distinction which underlies their aversion to any moral absolutes. For a moral absolute to be stated as a moral absolute the speaker must themselves be of the mind that it is absolute. To a liberal the absolute statements possible are in the physical realm. Everything else is restricted to “tradition,” “cultural norms,” and “brain-washing.” In other words, it is not that moral absolutes do not exist, it’s that they can not be known absolutely. Or at least absolutely enough to justify preaching them to others.

Thus it is that a liberal is not godless, as Ms. Coulter’s latest foray into political analysis would have us believe, but that they have visceral reaction to anyone claiming they know absolutely. And, by the way, this is not an irrational position.

The conservative, on the other hand, gets his or her philosophical underpinnings from the Reformation. And in many ways the Reformation was a return to the early Christian era when it was felt that God had, “in these last days” revealed himself. Thus, with revelation in hand, the conservatives believe truth and moral absolutes can be known and can therefore be preached. More than that, they believe that they must preach the moral absolutes if they are to save society. Now to get myself in real trouble…

Over the years I have come to see that there are four groups of people in this country. There are those who believe that one can know things to the degree that they are worth fighting over, there are those who believe that things are never so uncertain as when you think they are certain, there are those who generally support conservative political agendas and those who support liberal political agendas. The first group tend to be conservative though there are many liberals who fit into this camp as well. The second group tends to be liberal though there are those of us in the conservative camp who fit here. The third group, the conservatives cause group, tend to group with those who believe in certainty and there are liberals cause group who tend to attract those who do not believe in certainty. In any case, wars are generally fought by those who are willing to do battle and those willing to do battle are generally those who have been brainwashed or are certain of their position. For this reason the extremes of either party tend to dominate the discussion. They also tend to overstate their case, pick selective evidence, emphasize whatever supports their point of view, minimize any contrary evidence, and in general spend more time rallying the troops than entering into a rational dialogue with their enemy. But that is war, its dirty, hard hitting, fast paced, and deadly. Just like politics today. But does it have to be war?

How does one go about changing a war into a discussion? Most of those engaged in the war have long ago concluded that their enemies are a bunch of irrational, ignorant, self-centered, power hungry, baby killing, reprobates. They have only done what is done in war – demonized and dehumanized the enemy. Thus, if there is ever to be a civil discussion those in the middle, those who are not so convinced that they are right that they demonize those who are on the other side, must reassert themselves and engage. And they must take on the “demonizers” on both sides of the of the political spectrum, forcing them to actually make arguments that persuade.

Of course this does mean that those of us who make the attempt will probably be demonized by both ends of the political spectrum. The liberals will think we have not gone far enough because we insist that truth can be known enough to require its preaching. And those on the right will think we have compromised because we would dare to recognize the truth that we are just finite individuals who, in spite of what some might think, speak to God often but probably hear Him seldom.