Taking It to Extremes – Part 4 of 5 – Conservative versus Liberal

02 Dec 2020 1 Comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

unnamed

Introduction: (Skip if you have read Part 1 and Go to Part 4 below)

A number of years ago, I wrote an article about the famous “Golden Mean” of Greek philosophy.  The mean was basically a rule that said the best way of living is to balance extremes.  Another way of looking at what this rule implies is that evil or bad things happen when we over do something.  We need to take all things in moderation.  Thus, drugs, smoking, guns, watching TV etc., are not evil or bad in themselves but when we take them to extremes, they became dangerous and counterproductive.

Life is an ongoing struggle to find our proper balance.  However, it may never be a question of equal balance because the proper balance can never be static.  There are many dimensions or polarities in life where it is not really a matter of moderation or balance but more a matter of dynamically imposing a temporary order between two extremes.  The concept of Hegelian Dialectics comes to my mind as an aide in thinking about this process.

Dialectical thinking can be described as: “The ability to view issues from multiple perspectives and to arrive at the most economical and reasonable reconciliation of seemingly contradictory information and postures.”  This is a much more complex process than simply balancing extremes.  The more I thought about it the more I decided to add a corollary to the Greek Rule.  Since I think time has easily proved the value of the Golden Mean, a corollary by definition is a proposition that follows from and is appended to one already proved.  My corollary is as follows:

John’s Corollary:

Anytime, one concept in a set of opposing concepts is allowed to dominate the other concept, extreme dysfunction will result.

I want to discuss this more by using five pairs of concepts that I think are critical to our world today.  I want to show you how the distortion created by proponents of each concept is dangerous to life as we know it.  I do not use the word dangerous loosely or frivolously or for effect.  The battle between these ideas is destroying life as we know it on this planet.   The proponents of each side of these polarities seek to destroy the proponents on the other side.

Rather than looking at things from a systems perspective and trying to dynamically adjust the system, opponents are driven to allow one idea to dominate to the exclusion of the other idea.  Witness the name calling between conservatives and liberals today.  Each side demonizes the other side and assumes God is on their side and Satan is on the other side. Liberals are evil to conservatives and conservatives are evil to liberals.

Here are the five pairs of concepts we will look at in the next few weeks.  This week we will look at number four on my list.  We have already discussed the “efficiency versus effectiveness” dimension in part one of this blog series and the “growth versus development” dimension in part two and the “society versus economy” in part three.

  1. Efficiency versus Effectiveness
  2. Growth versus Development
  3. Society versus the Economy
  4. Conservative versus Liberal
  5. Rights of the Individual versus Rights of the Group

The-political-reference-point

Part 4.  Conservative versus Liberal:

Being a Liberal was once a label that someone could be proud of.  Today it has become a name of scorn.  Those to the left of liberals including progressives and radicals regard Liberals much like salt that has lost its flavor.  Jesus said “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltness be restored? It is not good for anything any longer but to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men.” – Mathew 5:13

All too often Liberals seem to lack the desire to take a strong position.  They seem to prefer to walk a middle road that often goes nowhere.  Once upon a time a Liberal was defined as: “One who is open-minded and not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.” — Meriam Webster.  Basically, a liberal was someone who was willing to change and was quite comfortable with change.  The political definition of a Liberal was someone who was committed to individualism, liberty, and equal rights. Liberals believed that these goals required a free economy with minimal government interference.  Today, we have a new concept for liberals or “Neo-liberals.”  A Neo-liberal is defined as someone who believes “in market-oriented reform policies such as ‘eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers’ and reducing state influence in the economy, especially through privatization and austerity.” — Wikipedia

20200111_OPP501

The definition of a “Neo-liberal is somewhat of a paradox since it contains many of the same concepts as we see in a definition of a political Conservative.  If you accept (as many pundits claim) that Democrats are liberals and Republicans are conservatives, then it would be almost impossible to tell the difference between a Neo-liberal, a Conservative, a Liberal, a Democrat and a Republican.

I have always hated to be called a Liberal.  The liberals that I knew seemed like the proverbial salt that had lost its flavor.  Bleeding hearts who were more than willing to give anything away as long as it did not impact their well-being. They would not stand up in the face of adversity and they always wanted to acquiesce when the going got rough.  Never one to stand up and fight, Liberals exemplified a Democratic party that I thought was beset by cowardice albeit they were always civil and polite.

But that brings us to the Conservatives.  This is the other extreme of my Conservative Liberal dimension.  Today Conservatives are the Tea Party zealots who have little in common with traditional Conservative values.  The current Republican Party has become the residence for what we should to be calling “Neo-conservatives.”

People hold signs at a Tea Party Patriots rally calling for the repeal of the 2010 healthcare law on Capitol Hill in Washington

People hold signs at a Tea Party Patriots rally calling for the repeal of the 2010 healthcare law championed by President Barack Obama, on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 24, 2012. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next Monday to Wednesday over the fate of Obama’s healthcare law, a battle with legal, political and financial implications for the U.S. healthcare system’s biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS HEALTH CIVIL UNREST) – RTR2ZTA0

“Conservatism in the United States is a political and social philosophy characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, limited government, support for Christian values, moral universalism, pro-business, opposition to trade unions, strong national defense, free trade, protectionism, anti-communism, rugged individualism, advocacy of American exceptionalism, and a defense of tradition and Western culture from the perceived threats posed by communism, socialism, and moral relativism.”  — Wikipedia

The traditional definition of a Conservative was someone who wanted to conserve or someone who did not relish or look forward to changing.  It was more of a careful orientation to established policies, procedures, and institutions.  Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines a conservative as someone who: “a: Tends or is disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions: Traditional conservative policies. b: marked by moderation or caution.”

FT_17.10.20_polarization_DemRep

Once upon a time a grudging respect existed between Conservatives and Liberals as exemplified in the show featuring Gore Vidal and William Buckley called “Firing Line.”  Each side knew that the truth politically and socially lay in a balance or a dynamic Hegelian tension between the two ends of the continuum.  I often thought of myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  In the old days, this would have had me with a foot in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.  That day is long gone.  Murdered, assassinated, and executed by Right Wing Pundits and Corporate Capitalism that has no use for social benevolence or taking care of the sick and needy.

KTTH-Lineup

Starting in 2000, I listened nightly to AM 1280 in Minneapolis, also called “The Patriot Radio Station.”  This station was a haven for right-wing commentators like Laura Ingraham, Dennis Prager, Mike Savage, and Hugh Hewitt among many others.  Day in and day out, these fascists would spew out slander about Liberals.  Liberals were associated with all the bad in the world and none of the good.

I wrote a blog four years ago about these right-wing nutcases called “Bigots, Liars and Right-Wing Radio Talk Show Hosts.”  In this blog, I explored the lies, calumnies, slanders, and bigotry that characterized most of their discourse.  For seven years, I tuned into the station.  Sometimes, I listened during the day and other times at night.  Always it was the same drumbeat:  Liberals bad.  College Professors bad.  LGBTQ bad.  Socialists bad. Democrats bad.  Nowhere on any radio station in the country were people or talk show hosts using the same derogatory comments to define Conservatives.  I have no doubt that the lies and hatred spewed forth on this station as well as other right-wing stations have poisoned the USA population against the ideas of Liberalism.

I know I stated off with my own less than positive slant towards Liberals but my attitude has more to do with Liberalism as it exists today and less with the traditional notion of a Liberal person who is willing to change and accepts change when needed.  Similarly, I have nothing but the deepest respect for the traditional values of a Conservative who is oriented towards caution and discretion when it comes to change.  Nevertheless, which ever side I choose to be on, it goes without saying that according to John’s Corollary:

“Anytime, one concept in a set of opposing concepts is allowed to dominate the other concept, extreme dysfunction will result.

2020-10-01-Politics-101

Conservatives need Liberals and Liberals need Conservatives.  Many people are condemning the extreme partisanship that has divided America.  I could not begin to list all the books that purport to both describe this partisanship and propose to have a solution to end it.  Most of these solutions are what I would call “pie in the sky” or looking at the world through “rose collared classes.”  There are many reasons for the divides that exist.  I am not a big believer in the idea that simply condemning the partisanship will end it.  What is my solution, you have every right to ask?  Am I any more pragmatic and less naïve than many of the pundits out there?   Sadly, I do not think there are any fast solutions, and I am not sure how many that I might propose would be workable.  But here goes my short list:

  1. Just as Nazism was outlawed in Germany, we need to outlaw and label as terrorist organizations many of the right-wing groups that exist in America.
  2. We need to broaden the definition of hate speech to make it a crime to label people and equate them with evil just by virtue of their job or title. Unless an organization advocates violence and bigotry they should be entitled to respect.
  3. Establish a bi-partisan group to monitor media and to restore some balance to reporting in terms of objectivity and factual relevance.
  4. Expect schools to teach critical thinking and not simply recite facts for Standardized Achievement Tests. Students need to learn to see the pros and cons in any position or argument and to understand that the world is not black and white.
  5. Create a national award system for journalists and commentators that are able to bridge the divide between left-wing and right-wing positions and who seek to find a solution that is win-win.
  6. Create a higher standard for ethics in the Legal Profession. Today the Legal profession in the USA actively aids and abets the right-wing fanaticism that is fueling much of the hate in this country.

“Neither the fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed. And our duty as a Party is not to our Party alone, but to the nation, and, indeed, to all mankind. Our duty is not merely the preservation of political power but the preservation of peace and freedom.  ― John F. Kennedy

I am open to other ideas.  If you would share any, please send them to me via email or post them in the comments section.

Gandhi’s Seventh Social Sin: Politics Without Principle

07 Jun 2013 18 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

We need to start off this discussion of Gandhi’s Seventh Social sin with a review of the definition of the term “Principle.”  There are many who would argue that politics today has too many principles.  Each side whether Democrat or Republican is firmly ensconced in their philosophical party principles which leave no room for discussion never mind negotiation.  A firm conviction that we cannot negotiate on “principle” has led us to some of the worst political situations we have seen in the long history of the USA.  We have always had “party” politics and there have always been back-room negotiations and political logrolling but never in our history have we seen the type of standoffs that seem to characterize Washington politics today.  Could these political standoffs be caused by rigid adherence to Party Principles?  Is Gandhi off-base with his Seventh Social Sin?  Do we need less principle in politics and not more?  Let us look at what the term “Principle” means by reviewing three different definitions or perspectives. 

Here are three different views of the term Principle: 

  1. A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.  – Online Dictionary
  2.  A basic truth, law, or assumption – The Free Dictionary
  3. A principle is something primary that helps in explaining phenomena. A principle can be some existing factor in nature (principles of nature and being, or it can be a logical proposition or judgment (principles of reason) that is a starting point of a valid argumentation. The principles of reason cannot be proven, since in order to prove anything you need to have a starting point, and a starting point is a principle.  – http://www.hyoomik.com/phi205/arche.htm#arche2

Here are some examples for the third definition.  These are: “Principles of Reason.”  I add these so we can be more concrete in our discussion and less theoretical, if that is possible given the nature of the discussion.  Nevertheless, perhaps these examples can help us think more clearly concerning the concept of principles. 

  • The principle of non-contradiction: the same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. The same proposition cannot be both true and false.
  • The principle of excluded middle: Either a thing is or it is not, there is no third possibility.
  • The principle of the reason of being.  Every being has a reason of its existence either in itself or in something else.
  • The principle of finality: Every agent acts for an end.
  • The principle of causality: Every effect has a cause.
  • The principle of identity: Every being is that which it is.  Each being is separated in its existence from other beings.

We have two issues raised by Gandhi’s Seventh Social sin that I think we must answer. 

First, does politics really need principles?  What purpose do they serve and why are they needed?

Second, can you have too many principles in politics and how do we determine if that is the case?

To answer the first set of questions, let us see what the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Non-Violence has to say about Gandhi’s interpretation of this sin:

Politics Without Principles:  Gandhi said those who firmly believe in nonviolence should never stand for elections, but they should elect representatives who are willing to understand and practice the philosophy. Gandhi said an elected representative is one on whom you have bestowed your power of attorney. Such a person should be allowed to wield authority only as long as s/he enjoys your confidence. When politicians indulge in power games, they act without principles. To remain in power at all cost is unethical. Gandhi said when politicians (or anyone else, for that matter) give up the pursuit of Truth they, or in the case of parties, would be doomed. Partisan politics, lobbying, bribing, and other forms of malpractice that are so rampant in politics today is also unprincipled.  Politics has earned the reputation of being dirty.  It is so because we made it dirty. We create power groups to lobby for our cause and are willing to do anything to achieve our goals.  Not many among human beings have learned how to resist temptation, so who is to blame for the mess we find ourselves in?

In this interpretation, Gandhi implies that the “Evil” of politics comes about because of the lack of ethics that characterizes much political gamesmanship.  We would have to assume that the need for principles reflected by Gandhi’s ideas is connected to the need for a higher standard of behavior then what we most often see in our politicians.  Thus, politicians are unprincipled and unethical if they engage in lobbying, power games and other manipulative endeavors.  However, Gandhi does not clearly describe what an ethical political principle would be. We have to assume that most politics as practiced today would be considered as unprincipled by Gandhi.  Yet he does not provide us with a clear set of ethical political principles.   I conclude my answer to the question: Why are principles needed? as follows:  To provide a clear ethical path for political behavior and to help guide politicians in their search for truth.  

For the second set of questions (see above) we are dealing with a different issue.  If we accept that some political principles (unknown what they are) may be needed, then we must ask if too many of these principles might indeed be injurious to the political process.  I have already noted that we are frustrated today with politicians who are taking oaths to standby their party principles and thus gridlocking the entire political process.  Does this mean, we already have too many principles or do we have too many of the wrong principles?  To answer this question, let us take as an example a key principle that the Republican Party has stood for and see how our system of political ethics might be played out using this principle as a guide.

It is well known that many of our elected officials have taken an oath not to increase taxes under any conditions.  The Norquist Pledge as it has been called was taken by “95% of Republican Congressional representatives.”   Many would argue that this is a bedrock principle of the Republican Party.  However, is it really a principle?  Is it a fundamental truth?  Looking at the three definitions for a principle that started this blog, does the Tax Pledge meet the requirements of a “Principle?”  If so, what evidence is there to link truth to the assumed outcome that we expect to be attained by a rigid adherence to this principle?  Will not increasing taxes always benefit the public good? Is it always best for the common people if taxes are decreased?  Will we all benefit by having fewer taxes?  A fundamental principle should have some fundamental truths or facts to support it otherwise what is the point of the principle?  Either a principle is true or it is a hypothesis.  If it is true, the results should be self-evident.  If the principle is merely a hypothesis, than good logic suggests that we should not be too certain of its validity until more evidence exists to either prove or disprove the principle. 

The logic of my argument so far seems to move me towards the suggestion that “Not allowing any tax increases” does not constitute a valid ethical principle.  I see no evidence that the greater good is always served by this principle.  Perhaps there are other party principles that might be less amenable to my critique since I simply selected one of the “principles” we hear most about and are most familiar with.  No doubt “too many” of these so called “party” principles would wreak havoc with our political system.  IN fact, we see this happening already.  I suggest we should call these unsubstantiated or principles either as false principles or hypothetical principles.  This would give more credibility to Gandhi’s Seventh Social sin.  Unfortunately, it still does not answer the question as to what a set of Ethical Political Principles might look like.  The following principles are one set that has some merit.   It includes eight principles that were taken from a paper by John L. Perkins titled:  Humanism and Morality.     

Non-maleficence: Do not harm yourself or other people. 
Beneficence: Help yourself and other people. 
Autonomy: Allow rational individuals to make free and informed choices. 
Justice: Treat people fairly: treat equals equally, unequal’s unequally. 
Utility: Maximize the ratio of benefits to harm for all people. 
Fidelity: Keep your promises and agreements 
Honesty: Do not lie, defraud, deceive or mislead. 
Privacy: Respect personal privacy and confidentiality.

You can see from looking at these principles that our problem is still not solved.  Some of these principles conflict with others and life is still not simple.  The Principle of Fidelity suggests that the Norquist Pledgers are doing the right thing.  However, you may also notice that this principle may be in conflict with one or more other principles on our list.  For instance, what if allowing a tax increase actually maximizes the ratio of benefits to all people?  Thus, the principle of keeping your Norquist Oath is in direct opposition to a principle that says to do no harm to others.  Very confusing!  Alas, life is never simple and no moral or ethical code can be found that does not have both contradictions and complexities that make conduct difficult.  This latter fact makes a strong case for holding any principle as a hypothesis and not allowing ourselves to be overly strident in its interpretation.  

In conclusion, I must admit to finding this Seventh Sin of Gandhi’s to be a very difficult one to follow and to provide any kind of a prescription for.  I discovered many authors who argued that an ethical or moral code for politicians is impossible and even counterproductive.  I also found many who argued that the need for a moral code for politicians is as important as for any other field of endeavor.  I lean towards trusting Gandhi in support of this Sin.  He has proven to be wise and insightful in almost all of the beliefs that are associated with his life.  Perhaps, I will see more clearly the argument for this Seventh Social Sin as I grow in wisdom.  For now, I am content to accept that our politicians need:

  1.  Moral guidance and moral principles to conduct politics with.
  2. The ability to search for truth as a fundamental principle underlying all other principles
  3. The acceptance and recognition that they may be wrong and being too exclusive of other options is a recipe for ineffective government and politics.  

Time for Questions:

What do you think? Do our politicians need a moral code or set of principles?  Do they already have too many principles? How strongly should they adhere to their principles? Should they be willing to compromise on these principles?  Is not allowing a tax increase really a principle?   Should they stand firm on this principle regardless of the outcomes?  When should we be willing to compromise our own principles? 

Life is just beginning.