From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Sep 15 2002 - 21:10:47 MDT
Any adult with the slightest interest in social developments
or politics soon becomes acquainted with a most curious
phenomenon: the almost platonic reality of the left-right
political spectrum. As soon as you know someone's views on
a relatively small number of issues, you can correctly infer
their views on almost all issues. Now what exactly determines
how someone comes to reside at a particular position on this
spectrum, and what are the deepest differences in values that
characterize the different views?
I have tried to start discussions on this topic a number
of times but with little success. But *why* should people
be reluctant to objectively discuss their political
differences? God knows that there is no shortage of
actual political dispute, but except for me on this list
(or so it seems) no one is interested in examining the
roots and ultimate reasons *behind* the disagreements.
This is because, sadly, most people consciously or not view
their own position as "right" and all other positions as
misguided, or ignorant, evilly motivated, uninformed, or
even stupid. Admit it! Isn't that what you *truly* think
of those who are always on the other side of every issue
from you? Perhaps as few as one person in five reading
this can truthfully deny the charge.
Yet even though folks are as conscious as I of the reality
of the political spectrum, the deeper explanation behind
their avoidance of the subject has IMO four sources:
One is that obviously it diminishes their own sense of superiority
or sense of special position to recognize the symmetries between
their own views and those of their opposite numbers. Interestingly,
this is similar to the well-known reluctance to admit the
possibility of extra-terrestrial life, and to the long term
historical urge of humans wishing to have a special place in
the universe, and their reluctance to concede that there may
turn out to be nothing special about the Earth.
Another reason is that it diminishes the force of their own
denunciations of their political opponents. It's simply a
lot harder if you've removed from your arsenal the pejorative
terms "silly", "stupid", "short-sighted", "unprincipled",
"mean-spirited", "blind", "lying", "morally bankrupt",
"cowardly", "unethical", "evil", "anti-American", "fascist",
"ridiculous", and so on, and to still deliver the strident
criticism that your heart aches for.
A third reason is philosophical. Just as many cling to first-
person accounts of phenomena as revealing truths inaccessible
to others or to rational discourse, so many also believe that
objectivity itself is impossible, or the urge for it misguided.
They believe that *power* is the only true currency, and there
is no such thing as truth outside of one's own perspective,
though they do admit that the unacceptable views of their
political opponents in fact arise from obsolete, discredited,
or oppressive cultural assumptions (unlike their own which are
of course enlightened, progressive, modern, egalitarian, and
superior in several other ways). Or they believe that the
unacceptable views of their opponents arise from the sinister
success of certain international conspiracies or intellectual fads.
A fourth reason related to all three of the foregoing is that
if you come from a certain one of the above positions, then
even the very *effort* to start a discussion such as this is
seen as a subtle ploy to advance one's own agenda. A number
of list regulars that I know will perceive with zero doubt in
their minds that this itself is *far* from an honest inquiry,
and is instead merely subterfuge designed to promote my own views.
We have just seen a debate break out over whether
or not the United States is arrogant, selfish, and
ruthless, and it is a *certainty* that the same old
arguments will be advanced on both sides, arguments
that the debaters have each heard many, many times.
(That's fine, BTW---I'm not complaining because I
don't have to read it if I don't want to, and the
debaters may have other motives, such as wishing
to perfect their arguments, or to merely entertain
themselves and the rest of us.)
But would it be *impossible* to search (perhaps even in
a spirit of harmony although that's not necessary) for
the actual underlying values on which such perceptions
are built?
Is it *impossible* to unearth the unarticulated
assumptions that underlie each position?
Lee
P.S. I do admit that if one does see one's adversaries
as completely wicked, then, yes, this is not a fruitful
endeavor for one.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:03 MST