I'm starting this blog as a response to some of the bias and vitriol coming from both sides of the American political spectrum. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. But I'm not writing to cry foul over biased media or to point fingers. There are plenty of voices left, right and center devoted to that. What I want to achieve here is the forwarding of our democracy and the clarification of what we've been doing of late and what we can and should do to improve that. These are ideas, and I'm open to suggestion or criticism. In fact, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm promoting.
What I'm promoting is a responsible electorate. A strong democracy comes, not from the promotion of one political idea over another, or one reading of history over another, but from the reasoned, civil discussion on the meaning of those ideas and histories. And it comes from people acting earnestly as voting citizens, and not in an attempt to 'game' the system. This is true of any parliamentary or congressional system, whether it be one-person-one-vote or weighted, direct elections or representative, universal suffrage or some limited process. I'll dig into that more in future posts.
As I'm sure, provided I get readership, that I'll be asked this, I'm socially liberal and moderate to mildly conservative fiscally. I do believe in the government's responsibility to provide for the basic needs of its citizens, but I'm not an advocate of an unchecked welfare state. If you're a pure 'bootstraps', free market, or social conservative, I'm probably pretty liberal for your tastes. If you're a pure regulated economy, pro-tariff liberal, you probably equally take issue with my political opinions.
I say this, not because I plan to make it a centerpiece or even an component of the blog, but because there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Every media system, every politician, and every citizen everywhere in the world is a product of the place and time they live in, the opinions that surround them, and some researchers suggest their genetics on some level. And we all suffer from cognitive dissonance. Those statements alone belie my belief in relativism, which in itself may get me some critics (the pope certainly is opposed to it, though I doubt he'll read my blog). But if I'm aiming for civil discourse, I think it's necessary to note my political leanings.
So I'm going to put out some of my opinions on how a civil system should work and how it currently works. I'm not a civics professor or even teacher. I haven't read all of the writings of our founding fathers or the economic/political thinkers of the Enlightenment. But I have read a good deal of those writings, and debated several of their ideas. Feel free to add to the discussion, and feel free to disagree. I'll listen to anyone who will discuss it reasonably.
Terrence, I applaud you for tackling this and I look forward to seeing what you come up with. I think the barriers to achieving "sanity" in civic life are huge, and start with the fact that not everyone would agree on the definition of sanity.
ReplyDeleteIf you honestly believe (as many do) that we are living in biblical end times and that your political opponent is the antichrist, the only sane thing to do is to oppose him in every way possible. And if you honestly believe that a corporate cabal owns our entire government and has stacked the deck so that there is no way for their opponents to win within the rules, then at some point armed revolution becomes the only sane response.
I'm not trying to be a downer, but I do think that any discussion of political philosophy or process has to take seriously where a lot of people are right now. Not most people, but a lot of them. And the ones who care the most about politics.
Shawn
Honestly, I'm more nervous about running out of material. I'm used to counter-argument moreso than initiating the discussion thread. I'm trying to pace myself a bit in hope I can breathe some real life into it. And also, as I've noted, I'm no expert, and I have a habit of hanging around with experts or nearly so, so I may find myself outgunned. But I'm making my peace with that possibility.
ReplyDeleteAs for the extremes, I do agree. And really, there is a component of that in any society in any time. But I feel that a wide proportion of the American public would be willing to listen to reason, should they be offered the chance. We've been painted a grand picture of a public that is either willfully ignorant, reactionary, and belligerent or entirely apathetic and apolitical. And as a result, life has been imitating art. So I'm hoping I can change a few minds by changing up the canvas a bit.
As to armed revolution, I will agree that history on occasion calls for it. But while the Republic of Ireland came about through revolution, peace in the north came about when two men who once swore they'd rather meet each other in a knife fight than at a negotiating table sat down and just such a table.
And I don't feel as though we are knocking at the door of revolution, though I think the tenor of the discussion of late is at least nudging us down the front path. But I also feel strongly that talk of revolution is in itself part of what is driving us in that direction. I think there is ample time to get us back on course.