10.25.04
Posted in philosophy at 12:01 pm by
Preamble: A post over at Headless‘ place got my ruminating on this.
I like lots of social conservatives. My friends are mostly conservative. I love them dearly, even if they drive around with a “W ‘04″ sticker in the back of their truck. I was even one of them once. In high school, I taped a picture of Ronald Reagan to the outside of my locker that proclaimed that I was starting a Ronald Reagan Fan Club. 75% of my class signed up.
Now, admittedly, I had no idea about what being a conservative meant then. Not to say that if I did know I would’ve been any different. Conservatives can be really nice people. I’ll even still vote for some next Tuesday.
What I don’t get is what it is about politics that changes people. Those nice folks that I hang out with all the time, what is it about the topic of politics that causes civility to go out the window. I’m not claiming that they become trolls and I’m the nice liberal who they flame, if anything, it’s the other way around.
I’ll just say it. I get defensive. Many times, I think this is all because of where I am and where I’ve come from. I like to think that this liberal epiphany I’ve experienced is a discovery of universal unchangable absolute truth. But, how can I feel so right when others think I’m so wrong. I hate that.
Why is it that people believe what they believe. I mean, do we learn it from childhood? Is it somehow ingrained in our psyche that one day we’ll pop out of bed and be a bleeding heart liberal, or a conservative?
Is it possible that in politics, there just isn’t absolute truth…or at very least, that humans have no prayer of even dreaming to approach this truth. Perhaps we just disagree. It doesn’t seem that any amount of logic will ever convince us–regardless of our affiliations–otherwise. It all makes me think, should we even try?
Perhaps the liberal - conservative dichotomy isn’t really at the core of the disagreement at all. I think I’m right on this. I have no beef with a conservative viewpoint. It’s a belief, how can I a fallen person even proport to have a beef with a well thought out belief.
Maybe the issue is just that: well thought out, sound reasoning. I think that’s what I react so violently to. If an arguement is reasoned soundly, I’m much less likely to get emotional about the argument. But, that leads me to this. If an argument is unsoundly reasoned, is violent reaction the most effective form of persuasion.
Isn’t it more helpful to simply point out unsound reason and allow that person to find their own way to a particular belief? Of course, we have pretty shitty role-models here. The two men vying for the position that controls much of the free world are both using unsound reason to support their perspectives and denegrate their opponent. The whole of election rhetoric can largely be summed up by the term: Red Herring.
As humans who are perenially incapable of achieving certainty, I think it may be a bit rash to be quick to classify an opposing viewpoint as stupid. Now, unreasonable, perhaps this is a fair critique, but you’d better be doing it with grace, and so had I.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/10/25/reason_free_from_passion/trackback/
Posted in philosophy at 12:01 pm by
Preamble: A post over at Headless‘ place got my ruminating on this.
I like lots of social conservatives. My friends are mostly conservative. I love them dearly, even if they drive around with a “W ‘04″ sticker in the back of their truck. I was even one of them once. In high school, I taped a picture of Ronald Reagan to the outside of my locker that proclaimed that I was starting a Ronald Reagan Fan Club. 75% of my class signed up.
Now, admittedly, I had no idea about what being a conservative meant then. Not to say that if I did know I would’ve been any different. Conservatives can be really nice people. I’ll even still vote for some next Tuesday.
What I don’t get is what it is about politics that changes people. Those nice folks that I hang out with all the time, what is it about the topic of politics that causes civility to go out the window. I’m not claiming that they become trolls and I’m the nice liberal who they flame, if anything, it’s the other way around.
I’ll just say it. I get defensive. Many times, I think this is all because of where I am and where I’ve come from. I like to think that this liberal epiphany I’ve experienced is a discovery of universal unchangable absolute truth. But, how can I feel so right when others think I’m so wrong. I hate that.
Why is it that people believe what they believe. I mean, do we learn it from childhood? Is it somehow ingrained in our psyche that one day we’ll pop out of bed and be a bleeding heart liberal, or a conservative?
Is it possible that in politics, there just isn’t absolute truth…or at very least, that humans have no prayer of even dreaming to approach this truth. Perhaps we just disagree. It doesn’t seem that any amount of logic will ever convince us–regardless of our affiliations–otherwise. It all makes me think, should we even try?
Perhaps the liberal - conservative dichotomy isn’t really at the core of the disagreement at all. I think I’m right on this. I have no beef with a conservative viewpoint. It’s a belief, how can I a fallen person even proport to have a beef with a well thought out belief.
Maybe the issue is just that: well thought out, sound reasoning. I think that’s what I react so violently to. If an arguement is reasoned soundly, I’m much less likely to get emotional about the argument. But, that leads me to this. If an argument is unsoundly reasoned, is violent reaction the most effective form of persuasion.
Isn’t it more helpful to simply point out unsound reason and allow that person to find their own way to a particular belief? Of course, we have pretty shitty role-models here. The two men vying for the position that controls much of the free world are both using unsound reason to support their perspectives and denegrate their opponent. The whole of election rhetoric can largely be summed up by the term: Red Herring.
As humans who are perenially incapable of achieving certainty, I think it may be a bit rash to be quick to classify an opposing viewpoint as stupid. Now, unreasonable, perhaps this is a fair critique, but you’d better be doing it with grace, and so had I.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2004/10/25/reason_free_from_passion/trackback/
Headless-in-GR said,
October 25, 2004 at 12:42 pm
Hmmm…
I like to think that God gives us a lot of space to try things. I think trying the “liberal route” is a valid option and so too the “conservative route.” It’s conceivable that both could work - as in, be useful in the scope of managing human affairs.
The problem is, as you’ve hinted, that we created a divide between these two that is probably not helpful. Furthermore, we’ve hedged ourselves in by these catagories so that it becomes difficult to think outside the prescribed lines.
The thing is political parties are big business - really, really big and “the people” really don’t want to do the hard work of thinking about issues, so the parties just feed us whatever will get us worked up and to the polls.
Many more things to think and say…and you will think and say much more?
Of course you will.
Resident Atheist said,
October 25, 2004 at 1:08 pm
I’m all for treating people like people and all that, but there comes a point when one side in particular is desperately short on the facts that there has to be a conversation about important things that may not be comfortable for anyone. Community is important, but so is getting at the truth. I’m not talking Truth with a big T, but facts that are quantifiable and easy to check. That’s the whole point of public discourse–at least if you live in the “reality-based community”.
Brandon said,
October 25, 2004 at 2:39 pm
My only trouble with thinking of the liberal v. conservative thing as a ‘route,’ Headless, is that it implies that we have some choice in the matter.
It’s certainly possible that we choose what we believe. But I can’t think of a decision point that I one day decided to be a liberal…I just sort of discovered I was one.
Either way, I think you’re right, both views are legitimate.
RA, I agree, too, that truth should be checked. I have a tendency to argue about Truth rather than truths. While truths can and should be checked and folks held accountable to them, I recoil from the idea that Truth can be checked…by me or any other human at least.
Mainsheet said,
October 25, 2004 at 4:03 pm
I don’t have a problem with well-reasoned conservatism, heck, in matters fiscal I’m a conservative myself.
Well-reasoned conservativism doesn’t give me heartburn, people who mindlessly parrot the rantings of demagogues like Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Coulter give me heartburn. For those people, lying is like breathing — it’s just another one of life’s necessities. When someone I know spouts demagogic nonsense and cites that as a reason they are conservative — well, what other response is there? You can’t confuse them with facts, their minds are made up. And that sort of NewThink is seductive. It’s a lot easier than actually sorting through messy facts and thinking about what they mean.
While I’m here, Brandon, re: your why can’t we have third parties plaint. If we were to switch to Single Transferable Vote (STV, or Hare, also called ‘instant run-off’) balloting we could easily have third parties. You could vote for the Green (or Libertarian, or whatever other third party) candidate you like, and then you designate a second (and if you like, a third) choice. To win, you need 50% of the ballots cast plus 1. If your candidate finishes last in the first round of balloting, your vote transfers to your second choice. Transfers continue until some candidate has amassed 50% plus 1.
Under an STV system, Gore almost certainly wins Florida in 2000. Can you imagine anyone willing to vote for Nader in 2000 who would have made the Shrub her second choice? The only person who claims to this year is Ralph, and he’s clearly delusional.
STV systems make minor parties viable. Under the current single-vote system, third parties tend to siphon off votes from one or the other of the major parties. Witness Ross Perot in 1992, and Nader in 2000. Sometimes it works well (some analysts credit Perot with Bush I’s defeat in 1992), and sometimes it doesn’t, like 2000.
Just Pat said,
October 25, 2004 at 11:38 pm
Hey BC. I applaude your introspection. Thanks for giving us another peek inside.
Headless-in-GR said,
October 27, 2004 at 9:40 am
BC-
I had no idea you were such a determinist! Just teasing! Anyway, I think being “liberal” or “conservative” politically is a human construction. Perhaps you woke up one day and realized that the disenfranchized were remaining in their condition? And from where you stood, you perceived the problem to be “conservatism?” Undoubtedly you see the problem is bigger than that as well - I’m not suggesting you’re simple minded at all!
Just wondering…
I am neither liberal or conservative. I look at each issue and think, “Is this an area where the government can be helpful? What would be the best solution here?” Sometimes, I come up liberal…sometimes conservative.
In the end, I do tend to believe with Lord Acton that “Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely” so I generally desire strong governmental power to be invested in small local governments so that it can be watched over closely by the people. Potential problems? Sure.
The thing is, though, government will never save us. It has to be redeemed like everything else. AND, when it’s redeemed, it will then have the potential to be “conservative” or “liberal” and still be holy.
I think.
Headless-in-GR said,
October 27, 2004 at 9:49 am
Oh, and RA, do you really believe that “one side is short of the facts?” I find that not to be the case at all…