I was having a conversation with a friend about the current health care proposals going through congress. My friend is a devoted member of one of the major parties, and is a lawyer to boot. He's been following politics much of his adult life.
Meanwhile, I have spent most of my life as a political cynic, which was my excuse for remaining ignorant and inactive while reserving the right to snark. Nowadays, though, I've been describing myself as an idealist. The philosophy I have most affinity for is Distributism, but I remain woefully ignorant even of that approach.
My friend's response to my questions and arguments often took the form: "That's just not the way things work! Politics doesn't work that way!" And when I asked why not, he would list a number of causes, such as the need to campaign or the need for groups to express their interests through lobbying, and so on. He would note longstanding practices which have become a foundation for taking political action.
My questions, on the other hand, tended toward the speculative: why are things the way they are? Is there some other way things might be? How can we move toward something better? He would reply that such questions are largely counter-productive, because they don't deal with the world as it actually is right now -- a situation that I am largely ignorant about.
So ... I have been trying to educate myself so that I am not so ignorant. At the same time, I have no attachment to the current American government, nor even to the American form of government. The more I learn about it, the more it either confuses me or frightens me. Sometimes it turns my stomach. And yet, as my friend points out, a complete change of government does not seem to be a realistic option -- and even if it were, what chance is there of a better government taking its place?
The defensive part of me wants to hold strong for philosophy and ideals and justice. I refuse to believe that government, even our government, requires the level of complication and corruption and compromise of principles that appears to be the daily order of business in D.C. and in state capitols and city halls and so on around the country. But am I just being defensive? Am I clinging to a pleasant fantasy? Am I just plain naive?
Who is Rabbert?
- Robert
- A rather opinionated fellow who takes himself too seriously. If only everyone else would take him as seriously....
More about Rabbert
Email me at king.rabbert [at] gmail.com
Rabbert also blogs at Virtue Quest.
Let Rabbert come to you!
Posts
Comments
2 comboxers:
" But am I just being defensive? Am I clinging to a pleasant fantasy? Am I just plain naive?"
Don't ask questions like that. You don't want the answers. I'm kidding of course. ;)
I think the problem here is actually being a bit too rigid in your constructs, not naive. You understand how the world works. Let me slice and dice a sentence that stood out for me to show you what I'm talking about:
"I refuse to believe that government, even our government, requires the level of complication and corruption and compromise of principles that appears to be the daily order of business in D.C."
Our government is complicated because the modern age is extremely complicated. The way you and communicate depends on literally thousands of people doing the right things at the right time (and the total miracle of a computer.) A complex society is going to have complex government. The miracle here is that a structure that was meant to govern far less people in a technologically simpler age has changed to governed in our era. (A study of history reveals no true "simpler time" - it was just different and in many ways, just as complex.)
On the hand, corruption is a basic part of human nature. We cannot escape it - it is something we must deal with and all of our ancestors dealt with. Those humans that have the towards corruption are the ones naturally attracted to power (and money). Part of the inherit genius of a well run democracy is to pit opposing forces of corruption at each other to leave the rest of us in peace as much as possible.
Compromise is absolutely required to make a democracy run. The last few decades of "I won't back down" politics is how democracies fail in the long run - the Civil War being the case study in what happens when compromise runs short.
I would also say that a complete unwillingness to compromise is also a very arrogant sort of way to look at life. It assumes that you have all the answers at hand all the time.
Phew - so back to my original point - (I had one, really.) Do you see how you blended several concepts and sort of labeled them "bad"? Or gave them a bad context, at least. But I pulled them part and found at least one neutral, one good, and one very bad.
It's the model here that's giving you trouble. ;)
PS - Speculative questions are vital to change and improvement. Asking those types questions are not counter productive. In fact, they tend towards the heart of the matter at hand.
Those good with a the status quo prefer to avoid those questions because they ask, in essence, if an activity in question is worth doing at all. It's not a comfortable place for people who haven't really examined why they do what they do.
You and I both, to a certain degree, have no "skin" in the political game. Both parties both seem kinda ridiculous from the outside and engage in some dubious activities.
But when you have a lot of you invested in an ideology or group of any sort (as your friend does), it doesn't look or feel silly. And sometimes the worst thing that can happen in that situation is for some disinterested shulb to come along and point out that your chosen path or activity might not be ideal.
Honestly, I've gotten to a point where I dislike talking to people who are so into their "side" political that it's difficult for them to see the world from any other vantage point other than what their party feeds them. Every issue in the modern world is complex- we've solved lots and lots of the simpler ones. Simple talking points from anyone aren't going to solve much of anything.
Anyway, sorry for the 2nd long rant. Just no need to suffer low self esteem from talking to a lawyer. That's my job as your friend. ;)
Post a Comment