Once again I asked my children what I should post. My oldest suggested I post something on
goals. That is a worthy subject and will
likely be the musings of a future scribble, but when I sat down and put fingers
to keyboard it wasn’t what sparked my passion.
Two things seemed to weigh on me.
I have said before that a person who does not understand multiple sides
of an issue does not have a right to an opinion, or at least no claim to a
reasoned opinion based on more than mimicry or emotionality. If you combine that with previous claims that
I feel an excessive, almost dogmatic, partisanship is bringing our country and
society to a standstill, you come to the ideas I want to put forth. In summary, I’m suggesting that we must get
beyond our emotionally charged positions and come to know the interests of all
sides so that we can begin to arrive at workable solutions to the quagmires
that beset us.
In order to achieve this reasoned approach, I would put
forth that we need to get to the root of the questions we face. Further, I state that the roots we are
looking for are seldom found in the arguments of either side, but lie in a
deeper understanding of the fundamental differences in those arguments. I could try and explain this concept further,
but for the sake of brevity and easier understanding I will use some examples
of key issues facing our society today and what I think is the missing profundity
in the approaches to those issues.
Let us start off with a hot topic, gay marriage and whether
it should be legally recognized by society.
For this discussion, my opinion on the matter isn’t of much interest;
rather, let’s look at the opinion of the two sides and the supporting
arguments. Those against legalized gay
marriage state that expanding the definition of marriage beyond that between a
man and woman will weaken the sanctity of the union. Further, it will undermine and disrupt the
concept of family and its place in society.
They feel that a society that allows and sanctions marriages outside of
the traditional nuclear view of the family will lead to the collapse of social
order and bring children up without a clear definition of who they are and how
they fit into an ordered and successful culture. In summation, marriage between individuals of
the same gender is not good for society and not a legally viable option and
therefore should not be recognized or encouraged.
On the other side of the issue, proponents of gay marriage
state that it is matter of equality and anti-discrimination. Without a legally recognized union, their
partnerships will always be either ignored, or worse, deprecated by society as
a whole and in particular when it comes to benefits, ability to secure
financial loans and housing, being recognized as heirs, and sanctioned in the
legitimate parenting of children. They
see any attempts at limiting the ability to form legal unions as discriminator,
barbarous, and backward thinking, if not outright persecution. They see it as a matter of freedom and
equality under law.
Opinions on both sides are deeply held and freely
exchanged—to little or no affect upon the opinions of the other side. Neither side, with the exception of some who
come across as extremists, are willing to openly state the core difference,
that being whether homosexual behavior is a moral choice. If I believe that a gay lifestyle is contrary
the laws put forth by my belief in divinity, then arguments around freedom and
equity under law carry no weight. No
legal code of man can supersede or negate a commandment of God. On the other hand, if I don’t believe that
there is such a divine condemnation of the gay lifestyle and that God, if I
believe in such a concept, sees my choice as valid and acceptable, then no
argument about the affect on society is going to make any sense. And so, rather than debate all the other
stuff, we should confess the true issue.
If we think homosexuality is a sin, then we are against gay marriage. If we see homosexuality as a moral lifestyle
choice, then we are in favor of its legal recognition. And there is little either side can do to
influence the other without first influencing that fundamental question, is
homosexuality a sin?
Let’s take another example, the role of race in our
society. We’ve come a long way from the
60’s when many still openly admitted that they thought that one race was
superior to the other. I’m not saying
that there aren’t still those that feel that way, but few would dare openly
express it. Now the debate flows about
the need for forced integration, or whether races long discriminated against
should now be given preferential treatment or other similar programs to try and
reverse the long term effects of discrimination and somehow equalize the
playing field. The reports and
committees try and determine to what affect stereotyping and race profiling
continue to affect hiring practices, the judicial system, and the ability to
escape generational poverty, gang involvement, and inner city blight. All of these discussions are based on very
real problems and represent serious concerns to our society in both the short
and long term. While we may claim to be
a melting pot, we are a long way from universal assimilation and equality. Nor have we yet even been able to define what equality would look like as many suggest there is a need to maintain and utilize a
certain level of diversity in society.
In order to demonstrate what I think is the real question
here, let me harbor back to a training I had many years ago as part of my
employment. It was on diversity and how
to manage it. I was a supervisor then
and would later go on to serve for a time in upper management. The trainers, in order to raise awareness,
provided videos and discussions to emphasize the racially involved problems
that still plague our society. The
presentation was very effective in explaining how individuals of different
races viewed society and what they thought the true nature of the problems
were. During the training I sat next to
an African American lady. We had been
supervisors in the same area for a time and while we weren’t close, I did know
her. At one point in the discussion she
was asked for her perspective. While she
didn’t claim that anybody had persecuted her or overtly mistreated her, I
was a little shocked to here her say that she often didn’t know how she fit in
and felt alienated. I had thought she
was well liked and for the most part respected.
As I pondered further I asked myself what it was that separated the two
of us and I came to a bit of an epiphany.
When asked what I thought, I admitted that I must be prejudice. It wasn’t that I felt superior or inferior to
her race, or any other race. What made
me prejudice what my lack of understanding of what it was like to be a black
person in our society. The same might be
said about being a person of another gender, religion, or ethnic
background. Indeed what separates most
of us from each other, regardless of characteristic or circumstance is our
inability and often lack of desire to understand the other person’s experiences
and feelings. A failure to walk a mile
in the other person’s shoes and experience life as they experience it leaves us
to fall back on intellectual arguments and endless analysis of socio-economic
factors and historical predispositions.
At its core, it isn’t race or other characteristics that separates us, it
is the difference of our experience.
I like threes so let me illustrate one last example. I read an opinion lately that said Abraham
Lincoln was one of our most disastrous presidents because he started us down
the road of big government that has lead to the major problems facing us
today. Being a big fan of Mr. Lincoln, I
had a hard time coming to terms with that opinion. Nevertheless, having studied the man and the
history of his times, it is undeniable that he took upon himself presidential
powers that were unthinkable to previous administrations and which many of his
day labeled tyrannical. Further, his
justification for the preservation of the union by emphasizing the supremacy of
the federal government over the rights of individual states, while justified in
my opinion, can logically be extrapolated to contribute to the rise in federal
power exhibited after his death. So it
begs the question of whether our society needs and should depend on as much federal
power and oversight as we now have, or whether our freedoms are better served by
a decentralization of power, a decreasing in regulation, less economic aid, and
an increased emphasis on the rights of individuals and other entities such as
businesses to operate as they see fit with little governmental involvement.
Here again, the usual arguments often skirt around or miss
the deeper questions. The real question
is whether individual rights are going to take supremacy over the rights of
society to govern itself. On the one
hand, a complete granting of individuals to do what they want and how they want
to do it would easily be defined as anarchy.
Without limits, I could do what I wanted regardless of its effect upon
other citizens or the environment. On
the other extreme is the idea that people are insufficient to govern themselves
and societal interests can only be served by giving oversight and regulatory
powers to a governing body such as a supreme council, congress, soviet, etc.,
or even a king or other despot. I think
most in our American society would find either extreme unacceptable, so it
comes down to where we want to draw the balancing line between societal
interest and individual freedom. Even
more fundamentally, it asks to what degree mankind or his organizations such as
cities and businesses are able act in his or their own interest without acting
contrary to the interest of the rest of society or the environment. It might even be tied to our individual
philosophy about whether or to what degree we are inherently good and
cooperative in nature, or whether we are basically selfish and destructive in
nature. How different the debate would
be if we conducted it around these questions rather than endless debates about
government spending, the need for certain laws, or the excesses of anecdotal
situations.
So, what would it mean if we debated the more fundamental
issues? On gay rights, for instance, as
a larger part of the society sees homosexual behavior as morally acceptable,
then arguments around the sanctity of traditional marriage will fall away and
arguments about equality will gain ground.
Only the most extreme opponents will dare talk about morality and proponents
of gay rights will not care to discuss it in those terms at all, unless it is
to decry the backwardness of organized religion. As for the race issue, we’ll continue to
debate immigration, inner city crime, and economic inequality rather than get
at the differences of experience that divide us and leave us unable to relate
to each other. Finally, we’ll debate
regulation policy, government economic intervention, and the need for phone
monitoring rather than make decisions about where we want to draw that
balancing line in the sand between individual freedom and the good of society,
or whether we as a people can make choices in our own interest while still
taking responsibility for the effects upon society and the environment.
In wrapping this up, how does this relate to my two
introductory themes of having an informed and reasoned opinion and in defeating
the excessive partisanship that I feel is tearing our society apart? It really comes down to two things—or maybe
two aspects of the same thing. First, we
must be willing to dig down to the fundamental questions and courageously bring
them out into the open and make them the focus of our discussions and
debates. Second, there must be a
willingness by all sides involved to, as a popular author suggested, seek first to
understand, and only then be understood. Applied to our three examples, when we as a
society decide where we stand on the morality of homosexuality, we can best
decide what legal protections, if any, we give to gay couples. When we seek to understand the experience of
those diverse portions of society, then we can better know how we can change
hearts, minds, and laws to support a healthy diversity and equal opportunity
for all. Finally, when we frame policy
and legal debates about the role of government in terms of what personal
freedoms we are willing to subject to the good of society or the environment,
and vice verses, then we can really see the reason behind whether a governing
policy or power is healthy or detrimental.
Thus we can put in proper check the unhealthy partisanship that is so
destructive to our search for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
