On a business trip last week, I stayed at a hotel where USA Today was delivered on my doorstep. A front page article told me that a majority of Americans did not approve of the way Republicans handled the Schiavo case and were concerned about the way “values” were being brought into the political debate.
It seems to me that politics are all about values. The basic drive behind all political ideologies are a vision of the right kind of society, and political disagreement is about what values are more important, and whether policies realize the values promoted.
Where it gets nasty is when side claims a monopoly on values, e.g., when one side declares itself the only family-friendly or peace-loving alternative. Most of the difficult political issues involve conflicting values. Some of these seem straightforward in hindsight - how could anyone oppose full voting rights for female, black, or native American citizens? Yet at the time, such reforms threatened to destabilize the foundations of society. Other issues will remain difficult - how much should society tax its citizens in order to provide for the less fortunate? Which is more absolute - a woman's rights over hoer own body, ot the sanctity of the unborn life? Et cetera, et cetera.
The enemy of honest political debate is rhetorical fallacies - hijacked premises, ad hominem attacks, an endless array of true Scotsmen, etc. If you do not support the president (for example) you're at least unpatriotic and possibly treacherous. Bill O'Reilly was complaining last week that the “liberal” press had its pundits actually detracting from the late pope's record. One such columnist, O'Reilly told us - had after 9/11 written that US needed to change to effectively confront the terrorist menace. How his views on one subject should disqualify his views on another was unclear, but O'Reilly evidently didn't think we needed to know what kind of change the columnist had called for. If he thought that US foreign policy should change to be much more aggressive in its efforts to destroy terrorist networks, or encourage democratic reforms in the Arab world, he'd have found allies in the Bush administration. But O'Reilly didn't elaborate. This was a guy whose honest opinions disqualified his from serious consideration. If you disagree with O'Reilly you're not just wrong - there' something wrong with you, your family, and the horse you rode in on.
The temptation, of course, is to talk back. Let Ann know she's a raving bitch and not nearly as hot as she thinks she is. Or that Bill is a bully and a bufoon.
But it'd probably be better to take the high road - show that you understand the issue from both sides and examine carefully the argument rather than the opponent's ability to color-coordinate. Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.
Comments