|
ART, going back to your original post, I think you're absolutely right in some respects that the various "positions" on issues of national security and social policy are not so far apart as one would think.
One thing that I find hard to resist is splitting the positions on these issues into two sides. Opinion on things fall along a spectrum, and I'm not sure how we always seem to come down to two positions, but it happens. So for the sake of simplicity (which is probably at the root of this binarizing (?) problem to start with) I'm just going to play along with the "two sides" assumption.
In terms of social policy, I think everyone wants to see a certain number of things happen, ideally:
1. everyone should have their basic needs met: food, shelter, water, health, etc.
2. everyone should have the ability to express themselves freely
3. everyone should have the opportunity to live a successful and fulfilling life
4. the environment should be healthy enough for human habitation
5. a stable society is in everyone's best interests
I'm sure we could think of more basic principles that everyone can agree on.
Where the disagreement seems to arise is in:
1. the prioritization of these ideals (e.g., enabling everyone to live a successful and fulfilled life is more important than the protection of the environment; social stability is more important than self-expression)
2. the method by which these ideals are best attained (e.g., government should ensure that basic needs are met, vs. individuals should be responsible for ensuring that their own needs are met)
3. the ability of individuals/corporations to make wise decisions in service of these ideals
4. the extent to which these ideals apply to all people vs just "our" people
Etc.
It's in these "methodological" issues that real, substative differences arise. I think part of the problem is that some of these issues are too complex to be examined empirically: it's impossible, in any kind of short time frame, to determine which way is "best" for meeting these ideals. So we fall back on ideology and dogma, or on what we think is going to be best for us personally.
I think we run up against some of the same issues when dealing with national security. I don't think anybody actually believes that either political party in this country supports terrorism. Nobody with a brain or a moral compass approves of the tactics used by these radical Islamists. We all want to be safe.
The problems arise in thinking about how best to achieve that safety without sacrificing other ideals - and there's the rub: we don't all agree on the value of these other ideals, such as the identity of the U.S. and its role in the world, the relative value of civil liberties, respect for the rights of other countries' citizens, the best way for the U.S. to protect itself, etc.
I guess all I've done is re-stated the nature of the usual disagreements. The problem is that I'm not sure these issues are tractable, unless we can agree on the basic ideals and then agree, further, to work together regardless of our ideological assumptions to find the best way to serve those ideals. The problem is that when dealing with ideology, you're dealing with something akin to religion. People's identities are deeply wrapped up in their ideological opinions, because they need to be shored up due to the lack of evidence. People have made a leap of faith that their way is best, and it's hard to "un-make" that leap, to step back and admit that the leap was, probably, artibrary or at least founded on suspect assumptions.
I guess what I think would be useful is some more discussion about the basic principles and less agreement about the ways to achieve those principles. Unless we figure out the first as a foundation to stand on, I can't see finding agreement about the second.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|