This piece was first posted on “The Policy Think Site”
Set your Bookmark to: http://www.jaygaskill.com
Copyright
© 2003, 2006 by Jay B. Gaskill
For
permission to copy, publish, distribute or print, please contact:
Jay B.
Gaskill, attorney at law, via e mail: office@jaygaskill.com
MUST WE GIVE IN TO OUR PARTISAN DEMONS?
Is
It Ideology Vs. Humanity?
Surely, humanity stands apart from all
ideology and political dispute, both as a vision and a reality. As a species and as a nation, we need to
foster the restoration of an ethic of humanity that transcends the competition
for power. Facing this prospect, I am particularly concerned with the current
tendency of liberals to marginalize conservatives and the converse, whenever
either group clan-gathers to hone its myopic vision of the world. Curious, how these terms liberal and conservative survive in our discourse in spite of
inadequate definition. Or is their wide currency a product of the
ambiguity? Certainly, the words are
inconsistent in common application.
Think of the journalistic reporting about “liberals” in the former
A brief aside: In my three
decades as a public defender I went out of my way to cultivate human
relationships that transcended my criminal defense role (and encouraged my
colleagues -- with limited success -- to do the same). As a result, my
professional life was enriched with insights into the humanity and perspectives
of those who were arresting and prosecuting my clients, as well as the
counselors and support groups that served my client population. An atmosphere of mutual respect and
understanding evolved. This was of
immeasurable help to the institution I headed for the last decade of my public
defense career, particularly during periods of budgetary turmoil.
In a Wall Street Journal column (Dateline 10-27-02), Peggy Noonan, the
conservative who wrote President Reagan’s speeches, gave us an authentic human
account of her grief at the loss of the passionately liberal Minnesota Senator,
Paul Wellstone; the piece was graceful, sincere, and without a word of political analysis or speculation. “It’s sad
to lose a good man,” Noonan wrote. “Good for America for raising him; good for
Minnesota for raising him to the Senate; good for Wellstone for being motivated
by belief and the desire to make our country better.” Putting humanity well
ahead of ideology is vital to our survival. All advocates could all do as well
as Ms. Noonan.
Repairing a Crippled Dialogue
I attended an interfaith gathering a few years
ago, an event whose attendance was conspicuous by virtue of the representation
of the “usual suspects.” One of the attendees later made a painfully accurate
observation. He said, ruefully, that this was another one of those “liberals
talking to liberals things.” Years later, I witnessed brief vignette at a
gathering dealing with humanity and technology. A questioner asked whether the
panel was aware of any organizations that were engaged in a broader dialogue on
the topic that included conservatives. His question wasn’t as pointedly phrased as
that, but the import was plain, and the answer was the predictable, “no”
followed by a resumption of the regular discussion. I had the image of his implicit point
sailing over the heads of the panel (and most of the audience) like a bat in an
unlit barn.
What we call liberal and conservative each represent core
stances, well rooted in human experience, and valid within particular
contexts. These stances are perennial,
necessary and complementary elements of an ongoing human dialogue. Each adds a special contribution to human
wisdom. In our history of policy and
power competition, various theories of human organization have gotten attached
to and detached from the underlying core conservative or liberal stances. This process has given rise to constructs
like “left” and “right, ” “progressive” or “moderate.
” Various policy clusters, often cobbled together from cooperating interest
groups, tend to make up our ideologies.
Yet the ultimate issues of our time transcend all these categories. Consider the latest issue: Will our species
succeed in subordinating technology to objectives and goals that actually serve
humanity? This, among other questions,
is too important to allow the partisans to define for us, let alone to assign
us our roles in some outdated political spectrum.
Technology issues are so multifaceted that no single, extant ideology
supplies a rational roadmap to good policy.
Consider questions like the control of atomic weapons, the possible use
of high tech information technology to restrict free expression, the misuse of
genetic engineering and psychotropic drugs to alter human nature in ways that
may facilitate totalitarian control, and the very personal problems of the
preservation of the
capacity for reflection and calm in the face of information overload. These looming problems can easily overwhelm
our “wisdom bandwidth.” Somehow, we need
to cull information from a torrent of raw data, knowledge from our information,
and wisdom from our knowledge base. And
in the process, we must learn how to preserve our balance and sanity.
The new century has handed us essentially novel issues and they are
simply too important to allow the old ideologies to divide us, even for a
moment. Humanity has too many potential
allies in political and ideological camps that are not now in mutual
conversation.
Wisdom and foolishness surface everywhere: among liberals, moderates,
conservative intellectuals, and even among the so-called “religious right” (an
overused pejorative).
We need many more than “the usual suspects.” Liberals should note in
this connection that Francis Fukuyama, a ground breaking academic, (The End of History and the Last Man is
his classic defense of democracy), typically associated with “conservative” positions,
has written probably the most trenchant and compelling discussion of the
dangers of the genetic manipulation of human personality. Also see The Great disruption: Human Nature and the
Restoration of the Social Order. Conservatives would do well to heed the
rational, humane voices among the environmentalists.
Why So Liberal; Why So Conservative?
Three core stances tend to identify and
partially define the core liberal and conservative mind sets. These in turn produce a world filter that
colors information and opinion formation about specific issues---
Conservative:
·
A
presumptive positive value is assigned to human tradition;
·
A strong
tendency to favor the rule-consequences
model for moral issues;
·
A
predisposition to honor material achievement as a fundamental good.
Liberal:
·
A
presumptive positive value assigned to relaxing human tradition;
·
A strong
tendency to favor the accommodation-consensus model for moral issues;
·
A
predisposition to honor artistic achievement as a fundamental good.
History is full of examples of the flaws and excesses latent within
each point of view. In any particular
historical context, each mindset, wholly or in part, may contribute wisdom,
folly, or both.
Left and Right
The terms “left” and “right” represent an historical overlay impressed
on classic liberal and conservative predispositions. In the last century or so, these clusters of
opinion have taken on parallel elements that differ in important ways. Again, I’ve limited my observations to the
most prominent three.
Left:
·
Materialist
egalitarianism is a presumptive good that defines virtue.
·
The
societal use of force is appropriate to take away excessive wealth.
·
The
proper function of foreign policy is to facilitate internationalist regimes
that further the first two objectives.
Right:
·
Materialist
accomplishment is a presumptive good that defines virtue.
·
The
societal use of force is appropriate to defend acquired wealth.
·
The
proper function of foreign policy is to facilitate co-nationalist policies that
further the first two objectives.
We can easily observe two things:
1. Neither materialist egalitarianism nor
materialist accomplishment really define virtue;
2. Societal use of force should be limited by
legal process, itself organized around moral principles designed to protect
human dignity.
I now believe that the ardent and ideologically driven “Left” and “Right”
are morally bankrupt. But conservative and liberal remain relevant, though taken separately are incomplete.
The Great Breakdown of Boundaries
Over the last century and a half, the assigned
boundaries that help define all these islands of thought have begun to erode in
important ways. Some of these are healthy developments, others unhealthy; all
present risks. This process will accelerate. Here are three domains where
dissolving boundaries are having strong effects:
Moral boundaries….
A negative development: The rise of cultural
and moral relativism.
Many on the left have embraced this because it is an acid that
dissolves tradition and undermines authority structures, which are perceived to
be illegitimate. Ultimately this
position is incoherent because, in a morally relativist culture, the way is
left wide open for the return of fascism and other atavistic, power-driven
regimes. The
When we humans operate without overriding
universal norms that are agreed to as valid and followed as authoritative, malevolence
fills the void: Nazism and totalitarian Marxism were the 20th century’s
malevolent exemplars. Amoral power ideologies are usually camouflaged in the
language of moral rebellion. This century poses even greater risks than the
last because technology is a potential force multiplier for the malevolent mind.
Therefore I believe that moral relativism is profoundly toxic. The restoration
of sound moral boundaries rooted in
universal principle is the first task of 21st century thought.
Creative boundaries….
A positive development: The acceptance of technology and invention have as
legitimate parts of the creative
process.
This has blurred the boundaries drawn between creative material and
creative artistic achievement. On balance, I see this as a healthy development.
The creative process in all its modalities requires a degree of freedom; the
creative process in the domain of art has enriched human life; in the domain of
technological invention it has enhanced human life, ameliorated human
suffering, and holds out the promise of giving us the tools to save the
biosphere.
Of course we must face the omnipresent danger that without overriding
universal norms technological power will become destructive. So we 21st century humans find
ourselves on the precipice of the species-defining question: Will technology be used to change human
nature? Without a deep and abiding
respect for human dignity, a clear vision of the truly human, and an underlying
confidence in universal moral rules, those with power will misuse
technology. They will be tempted to
alter human nature to fit the need for compliance. Even an unsuccessful attempt at this effort
portends an unacceptable cost to the rest of us.
National boundaries…
A pivotal development: The subordination of national sovereignty is a strong trend in the current
circumstances, but the modality of that subordination, whether it is for good
or for ill, depends again, crucially, on the norms that apply, and whether such
norms can reliably be enforced.
I am reminded of the high sounding rhetoric in the UN Charter and in
the “constitutions” of some totalitarian regimes of the left. Not only is the
“devil in the details” it is in the structure and the underlying philosophy.
Our special country with all her faults acknowledged remains in the
upper tier of accomplishment as measured against the world population as a
whole in four respects. [This by no means is a claim of perfection, just a
general comparative assessment]:
(1) For religious tolerance (by which I mean
respect for religion, itself, as well as tolerance among religions);
(2) For the protection of communication freedoms;
(3) For the protection of basic economic
freedoms;
(4) For the prohibition of atavistic practices
such as the torture of political prisoners, genital mutilation, slavery, and
the subjugation of women, just to identify four such evils.
It is impossible to ignore the core human migration pattern. Migration
is almost always unidirectional: Toward the safe and prosperous islands in this
turbulent world where the core norms of civilization flourish: especially the
protection of the law, opportunity for productive employment and peaceful,
creative activity. Yet the areas where
these things are robustly protected and promoted hold only a minority of the
world’s population. People are voting
with their feet every day.
Any prospective trans-sovereign regime must be measured by its ability
to foster and protect the core norms of civilization. Under the present
circumstances, a world regime based on “one regime one vote” would facilitate
the regression of civilization, even its suicide. Without overriding universal
norms, and appropriately realistic enforcement regimes, the return to patterns
of pre-Enlightenment, tribal rule is almost inevitable. The dissolution of national boundaries
requires the reestablishment of moral boundaries.
Recovering Our Humanity
In order to hold fast to our core humanity
during these struggles, we humans must escape the boundaries of our
“ideological clans” and recover the moral boundaries that make true
civilization possible. This can’t happen
quickly. But we can start by insisting on the observance of certain norms in all our
discourse and interactions:
In Our Rhetoric:
Humility:
A willingness to understand and concede that all policy changes depend
on real world forces, that unintended consequences cannot be eliminated, and
that “past performance does not guarantee future returns.”
Mutual respect:
A willingness to acknowledge that the discussion about ideas form a common human
perspective. Ad hominum personal or even attacks
almost always degrade the debate and reduce the capacity to cooperate on
matters of common interest.
Authenticity and intellectual
honesty:
A refusal to make the arguments you don’t believe in; a policy not to
pretend that the issue is practical rather than moral or the converse, and a
commitment not to engage in deliberately deceptive ambiguity or promote
confusion.
In Our Dealings:
Credibility:
We keep our promises.
Humor:
We remain willing to laugh at ourselves, at human folly, and to share
our common playful side.
Authentic relationship:
We relate to each other on that deeper human level in which policy
differences, power competition, and ideology are secondary, even trivial.
A Final Comment
Do you find it as interesting as I do that the
six norms of rhetoric and dealings I have outlined seem far stronger in all the
small towns and small enterprises I know about than elsewhere? In the larger
secular academic circles, back biting and intellectual dishonesty too often
prevail. In the more extreme political camps of left and right, posturing,
character and ideological assassination are part of the regular playbook.
APPENDIX
Why “Conservative” and “Liberal” Are Universal
Tendencies
The contrary view (seeing the battle between these competing views of the human condition as an epic struggle between irreconcilable, incommensurate value systems) misses something essential to the human condition: There is the kernel of a universal normative principle operating in each liberal or conservative tendency.
The actual social utility and moral validity of the respective dominant liberal and conservative tendencies in human history has varied era by era as the boundaries in question have captured or failed to capture essential stability points in human development. We humans have traveled from our “short, nasty, and brutish” pre-civilized phase to the “ladder of civilizations” that promises, over time, the realization of the innate potential of our species for greatness. In this journey, we have benefited from boundaries as much as we have been held back by them.
Civilization is our species’ most essential technology. This social technology, more than any single or group of engineering inventions, is responsible for our species’ progress toward realization of the full human potential.
Civilization’s optimum functioning depends on normalizing and preserving a regular and recognized system of peaceful exchange of ideas, goods, services, the preservation of human institutional and cultural memory, and the creation and protection of conditions essential for the promotion of human creative endeavors.
By necessity, human civilization requires the preservation of essential boundaries while allowing arbitrary divisions to melt away, to be replaced by new, more reasonable ones. Thus, in the last two hundred years, civilizations have begun to discard (and in some instances have succeeded in almost erasing) arbitrary social and political boundaries founded in outmoded notions of inherent social superiority based on genetics and gender.
The liberal tendency is strongly associated with this boundary dissolution process, but the histories of the late 19th and early 20th century have supplied us with powerful counter examples. For example, who would now argue the merits of the Chinese “cultural revolution” in which trained physicians, scientists and teachers were compelled to work in farms, or were ridiculed in the public square because of their success? There has never been a time in human civilization in which some individuals were not more accomplished than others or in which some accommodations were not made for those whose skills and efforts were more generally beneficial than others.
At root, the perennial conservative – liberal dialog is always and always has been about boundary issues. For discussion purposes, I have selected fifteen Boundary Issues for further dialogue.
Each division invites us to identify policy and social issues in which the dissolution or retention of the boundary in question makes sense. And the overall exercise invites us to grasp how in each instance the larger context of the division reveals a unifying norm that transforms each of the various boundary disputes into a potentially constructive dialog rather than an irreconcilable conflict.
Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Jay B.
Gaskill
Author contact: law@jaygaskill.com