Skip to main content

Maybe we're not complete idiots after all

A new survey shows that Independents now greatly outnumber both Republicans and Democrats- and by record numbers.

I want to make it very clear that I am not personally advocating any of the positions which I argue below are wrongly excluded from our political dialog. I am merely suggesting that if they were part of the debate, our conclusions might be more thoughtful, more helpful, and more beneficial to all of us, even if they are rejected (which in at least some of the cases I would hope that they would be).

Consider one controversial issue. Remember the disclaimer with which I closed my last paragraph, now.

Ever since Roe v. Wade was handed down, polls have shown that, by a wide margin, Americans 1) do not want to see abortion outlawed, but 2) oppose the legality of abortion for the reasons that nearly all abortions are, in fact, performed in this country (that different questions in  the same polls consistently have shown  these results down through the years rather clearly compels the conclusion that support for Roe v. Wade among non-lawyers unfamiliar with the details of that decision is actually opposition to the banning of abortion, rather than support of Roe's actual details).

So the American people are given the choice between a party which wants abortion legal in practically all circumstances, and a party which wants it illegal in practically all circumstances. Democracy is defeated, dialog is polarized, and the vast majority of voters are left with no party which reflects a position with any nuance at all.

Another example: "progressive" intimidation and strong-arm tactics have, to a great extent, silenced opposition to marriage re-definition, leaving the voters with the alternatives of either equating same-sex relationships which are rarely long-term, often non-monogamous when they are long-term, have a high tendency to be abnormally dysfunctional in other ways,, and most importantly ignore the historic legal reasoning for marriage in the first place- protection for the relationship in which children are born and nurtured- in favor of a recent and rather sentimental rather than rational protection for "loving relationships," or simply denying all legal protection and support for those gay and lesbian relationships which are stable, long-term, and nurturing of the larger community. The dichotomy between the radical Left and the reactionary Right has left the discussion of other possible arrangements- civil unions, for example, or the development of institutions parallel to marriage in the gay and lesbian communities which reflect the realities of their own unique circumstances- completely off the table.

There are serious, if unintended, consequences here. For example, if is true that "love" rather than the stable nuclear family, is to be the legal rationale for marriage, it is difficult to see how that very logic does not suggest the unfairness and perhaps the unconstitutionality of marriage as an institution- marriage for anybody. Doesn't it discriminate against "loving" but non-permanent relationships? Serial monogamy? One-night stands?  Don't the people who engage in such relationships count, too?
If it's unfair to discriminate against people on the basis of whom they love (yes, I know that's not really the issue,  but it is the Left's rhetoric), then isn't it equally unfair to discriminate against people on the basis of how long they love?  Or how many? If limiting marriage to traditional male-female couples is discriminatory, what about forbidding legal protection to polygamous or polyandrous relationships?

On the other hand, is it really fair for the healthy partner of in a long-term gay or lesbian relationship to be forbidden the right to visit a sick partner in the hospital, or to have him or her covered by health insurance?

The inappropriate, at best premature, and often clearly  unconstitutional interjection of personal and highly questionable judicial opinions and ideologies into matters best left to the ebb and flow of democratic debate and the actual evolution of societal attitudes has created a bizarre climate in which much unnecessary polarization has taken place in our society. No less a "progressive" icon than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg recently conceded that Roe, for example, was premature, given the status of the debate on the issue of abortion at the time, and as a result ended up exacerbating rather than resolving society's division on the issue. But how can it be otherwise, when the dynamics of our entire political system seem geared to dichotomize and polarize our personal positions on issue after issue?

Even a third, "moderate" party isn't the answer. After all, a great deal of the problem is that so many radical Leftists (especially in the media) and off-the-wall Rightists alike are unaware that their positions are extreme! Such are the consequences of a political structure which makes our political dialog a bipolar mutual harangue  between un-nuanced,  extremes, a binary choice between equally ill-considered positions. The thoughtful voter of nuanced mind simply has nowhere to go.

Not that we have many of those. Seldom has our electorate been as ill-educated, ill-informed, and lacking in the most essential disciplines of nuanced thought. But at least we seem to be waking up to the reality that the present system isn't working.

Maybe there might be worse things than a multiplicity of major parties electing what our British or Australian or Canadian cousins might call "hung congresses," and even "hung Electoral Colleges," and forced to govern by coalition and negotiation. Alas, a great many of those dissatisfied with the status quo rail against precisely that  vital component of the government of free people, and complain that the current arrangement doesn't force our politicians to be radical and un-nuanced enough.

But it might be at least a start. Better that our options include the "Friends of the Moon" (an actual Italian political party several years ago, with seats in Parliament and everything).

It might force the Democrats and the Republicans to be more responsible, more nuanced- and more viable as potential leaders of a nation desperately in need of reasoned debate rather than slogan-throwing and name-calling- and unthoughtful, extreme policies which benefit nobody, and only serve to drive us further apart without yielding solutions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…