Having the political beat here at the paper, and having a background in professional politics, I’d like to think I bring a certain world-weary, cynical wisdom to the laborious process of sorting the rhetorical wheat from the ridiculous chaff. Were politics an actual harvest, sadly, we’d all starve. Yet, despite the cynicism that I have come to regard as a sort of armor, I’m always dismayed when the art of compromise is discarded in favor of orthodox rigidity.
So my thoughts dwell on the political homeless - the moderates. Some call them Republicans or Democrats in name only. Others label them as indecisive. They are rarely heard en masse because the extreme left and right flanks are always baying for the blood of the unbelievers. Yet, I believe, deep down, we really are a nation of moderates that are too busy trying to make a living to make as much noise as the radicals.
As controversial as this may seem, radicals tend to be the dimmer bulbs on the Christmas light strand we call democracy. I hate to be so direct, but I sometimes question the wisdom of allowing them to vote. I always thought it odd that in order to drive, operate complex machinery, or even to hunt, one requires a license of some kind to ensure the holder, at the very least, knows their craft enough to ensure the safety of themselves and those around them. Yet, when it comes to two of the most monumental and potentially damaging activities known to humankind, parenting and voting, one simply needs to be an enthusiastic, carbon-based lifeform of legal age and location.
I don’t mean to imply there isn’t a place for strong belief in the process. Democracy runs on friction - the natural tension between ideas that, hopefully, produces wisdom and a better world for us all. Too often these days, however, the tension leads to repulsion, factionalism and ostracism. Good people are dissuaded from participation at the higher levels because they don’t measure up to the radical’s idea of the way things should be. Even we in the media wait for slips, gaffes and mistakes like circling, hungry sharks.
One of my favorite writers is the late Dr. Carl Sagan, who said, quite wisely, “Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science — by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans — teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.”
The moderate knows this. The moderate knows that we will never reach perfection in government - that no particular partisan stance is the correct one. There’s just the best option at the time and the lesser of two evils on occasion. Where the radical sees only black and white, the moderate perceives multiple shades of gray. Where the radical says my way or the highway, the moderate knows there are many roads on a map worth exploring. Most important, the radical is absolutely certain and believes action should be taken immediately. The moderate is not afraid to admit they don’t know, and that the situation requires further study before action should be taken.
Government is too important to be left to the radical, because they don’t have our best interests at heart. They mistakenly believe theirs is the best and only way. They fear change that doesn’t benefit them. They refuse to consider alternatives that they didn’t think of. They are not afraid to use fear and division to reach their goals.
I, for one, have had quite enough of the radical these days. Have radicals done good things? Yes, but only when the right time, right person and right message converge. One can be a radical on things like slavery, genocide or apartheid. However, they simply aren’t needed for the everyday things where they cause more good than harm. For common good, for progress, you need a moderate, and I hope they make their presence known in the upcoming election.
|
|
|
Having the political beat here at the paper, and having a background in professional politics, I’d like to think I bring a certain world-weary, cynical wisdom to the laborious process of sorting the rhetorical wheat from the ridiculous chaff. Were politics an actual harvest, sadly, we’d all starve. Yet, despite the cynicism that I have come to regard as a sort of armor, I’m always dismayed when the art of compromise is discarded in favor of orthodox rigidity.
So my thoughts dwell on the political homeless - the moderates. Some call them Republicans or Democrats in name only. Others label them as indecisive. They are rarely heard en masse because the extreme left and right flanks are always baying for the blood of the unbelievers. Yet, I believe, deep down, we really are a nation of moderates that are too busy trying to make a living to make as much noise as the radicals.
As controversial as this may seem, radicals tend to be the dimmer bulbs on the Christmas light strand we call democracy. I hate to be so direct, but I sometimes question the wisdom of allowing them to vote. I always thought it odd that in order to drive, operate complex machinery, or even to hunt, one requires a license of some kind to ensure the holder, at the very least, knows their craft enough to ensure the safety of themselves and those around them. Yet, when it comes to two of the most monumental and potentially damaging activities known to humankind, parenting and voting, one simply needs to be an enthusiastic, carbon-based lifeform of legal age and location.
I don’t mean to imply there isn’t a place for strong belief in the process. Democracy runs on friction - the natural tension between ideas that, hopefully, produces wisdom and a better world for us all. Too often these days, however, the tension leads to repulsion, factionalism and ostracism. Good people are dissuaded from participation at the higher levels because they don’t measure up to the radical’s idea of the way things should be. Even we in the media wait for slips, gaffes and mistakes like circling, hungry sharks.
One of my favorite writers is the late Dr. Carl Sagan, who said, quite wisely, “Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science — by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans — teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.”
The moderate knows this. The moderate knows that we will never reach perfection in government - that no particular partisan stance is the correct one. There’s just the best option at the time and the lesser of two evils on occasion. Where the radical sees only black and white, the moderate perceives multiple shades of gray. Where the radical says my way or the highway, the moderate knows there are many roads on a map worth exploring. Most important, the radical is absolutely certain and believes action should be taken immediately. The moderate is not afraid to admit they don’t know, and that the situation requires further study before action should be taken.
Government is too important to be left to the radical, because they don’t have our best interests at heart. They mistakenly believe theirs is the best and only way. They fear change that doesn’t benefit them. They refuse to consider alternatives that they didn’t think of. They are not afraid to use fear and division to reach their goals.
I, for one, have had quite enough of the radical these days. Have radicals done good things? Yes, but only when the right time, right person and right message converge. One can be a radical on things like slavery, genocide or apartheid. However, they simply aren’t needed for the everyday things where they cause more good than harm. For common good, for progress, you need a moderate, and I hope they make their presence known in the upcoming election.
