Tom of Disputations doesn't like the devaluation of truth that seems to attend political discussion.
But if there were truth in politics, where would the humor be? Who would even follow politics if there weren't delicious howlers like Barack Obama's promises? Or did you hear the latest from the Republican side, the one that goes: Reporter: "Doesn't Sarah Palin lack foreign policy experience?" Campaign Aide: "No, Alaska is right next to Russia!"
Now that's just plain funny.
Even worse, if there were truth in politics, how would James Carville find work?
So I see Tom's point though I prefer to disputatio it. We all work from first principles. For example, we all work from the conclusion that the scientific method is effective, notwithstanding the possibility of miracles. Theists work from the conclusion that God exists and atheists* from the conclusion He does not. Conservatives work from the conclusion that big government is bad and liberals the opposite. John Paul II wrote, "there are in the life of a human being many more truths which are simply believed than truths which are acquired by way of personal verification. Who, for instance, could assess critically the countless scientific findings upon which modern life is based?"
The definition of a first principle seems a sort of line-drawing in itself. I think that part of what is irritating about democratic politics is that everyone draws their own line and people resent that some have drawn a line different from them. For example, I dislike that many Catholics will vote for Obama, and I also dislike that some won't vote for McCain simply for his stance on embryonic stem cell research. But that's democracy. And sometimes, though not very often, I actually appreciate the fact that we entrust power not to one flawed human or a group of flawed humans but to our collective body. In this, it's ironic that democracy works more the way Communism was supposed to work than Communism itself. I love that democracy is not elitist. We see just how pernicious elitism is in our abortion policy, now that we have entrusted the fate of millions of babies to nine people in robes.
But we also see the downside of democracy every day. One instance I was reminded of on MSNBC today, that of immigration and how "nuance" doesn't work too well when things get personal. For example, it just seems patently unfair that McCain might lose the election simply because the Republican party wants to control U.S. borders.
McCain has much less support among Hispanics than George Bush, if you can believe that. And according to the McCain campaign manager this is a reaction to the "nativist discussion" going on in the Republican party the past 2-3 years. He says you can't "bifurcate the message" in saying we like legal immigration but not illegal immigration. That nuance is simply not seen by Hispanics as nuance. For them, it sounds like Republicans are against Hispanics. Their conclusion is "if you're against illegal immigration, you don't like Mexicans". What can you do? Tom K. makes a lot of sense because it shuts down the debate. But that's their core principle so what you gonna do?
* - By the way, had a dream in which there was an atheist school that taught kids only up to the number 90,000 because the atheists didn't want any sliver of God into the schools and they worried that numbers very large might indicate the concept of infinity and thus God...
No comments:
Post a Comment