Since yesterday's article about the "enthusiasm gap" related to the issue of compromise, I thought I'd share some of my views on compromise.
One should strive to do good, to accomplish good things. Sometimes that will be easy. Everyone will agree what is good, and how to do it, and everyone pulls together in the same direction in the same way to accomplish the same goal.
Sometimes, though, there is disagreement on what is good and what is not. Even more often, there is disagreement on how to accomplish a shared goal that is mutually agreed to be good.
Often, the assistance or cooperation of someone else, someone who might not be in complete agreement about either the goal or the means, is required to move toward the desired goal. In order to secure that cooperation, it is not only necessary, but appropriate to make certain kinds of compromises.
For example, a husband and wife may agree that they need a new vehicle, a car. One wants a large vehicle that carries many passengers and goods. The other wants a vehicle that gets the very best gas mileage possible and is easy on the environment. So, one wants a big SUV, the other wants a Smart Car. However, one objects that the SUV gets terrible gas mileage. The other objects that the Smart Car isn't large enough and it's not very safe.
So, they compromise and buy a smaller hybrid SUV. Neither gets exactly what they want, but both get something of what they want, and they are both better off than if they had refused to compromise and been stuck with their old car that neither of them liked or wanted.
Some compromises, however, should not be made under any circumstances. Those are the compromises that require the compromiser to become complicit in evil in order to get something they want.
Imagine this scenario: A bank robber takes 40 hostages in a bank. He threatens to kill all the hostages if he doesn't get what he wants. There is no way he will ever be given what he wants.
The hostage negotiator shows up and tries to talk the robber into releasing all of the hostages, but, despite his very best efforts, he cannot convince the robber to release all of the hostages. The best he can do is to convince the robber to give up 20 of the 40 hostages. He is pretty sure if he takes the deal, the other 20 will be killed, but he's also pretty sure if he doesn't take the deal, all 40 will die. In that case, it is entirely appropriate to take the deal. It wasn't the full goal of the negotiator, but at least it saved 20 lives, when without the compromise, all 40 would have been lost.
However, that is very different from this scenario: Same situation, except the best deal the robber will give is "I'll release 20 of the hostages, if you, Mr. Negotiator, will shoot the other 20. Otherwise, I'm gonna shoot all 40."
The hostage negotiator cannot, under any circumstances, take that deal, because it requires him to be complicit in evil. While there is no quantitative difference (20 live and 20 die in both cases), there is a qualitative difference that absolutely prevents the possibility of compromise in the latter case. It is never morally appropriate to agree to do evil to accomplish a perceived good.
That's one of the main reasons why I listed the things I listed in my article yesterday which are "compromises" made by President Obama which he should not have made and should not be making. I believe that many of those things required no compromise at all. He could have done them or stopped doing them, as the case may be, without any cooperation from anyone else at all. He's the president. He could simply decide that they would be done or not be done and it would be so.
However, in many of those cases, he would have to pay a political price and, in some cases, perhaps more important prices of various kinds, to have done or not done particular things on that list. So, I believe, he compromised. For example, he couldn't close Guantanamo without paying a heavy political price, so he kept it open, but drastically lowered the number of prisoners being held there.
The problem is, he's the one holding them there. He didn't agree to take 20 hostages because he couldn't get all 40, knowing that the robber would kill the other 20. He agreed to take 20 hostages and to himself shoot the other hostages.
This is why there is a lack of enthusiasm among liberal or Democratic voters. We are forced to choose between a party that shoots 40 people because it's expedient and a party that shoots only 20 people because it's expedient. We're just haggling over price.
Generally speaking, compromise is absolutely essential to a functioning democracy and a positive good. However, that kind of compromise, the kind that requires the compromiser to become complicit in evil to gain the compromise, will, eventually and certainly, destroy a democratic government.
It simply cannot happen. It cannot be allowed to happen. It is always wrong.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The "Enthusiasm Gap"
There is much in the news about the "enthusiasm gap" between Republican or conservative or tea party voters on one side and Democratic or liberal voters on the other.
I don't doubt that the gap exists, for I feel it myself. I am a liberal Democratic voter who does not feel very enthusiastic about voting for Democrats in this upcoming election. (I insert here the caveat that my feelings do not apply to all Democrats, but, unfortunately, they do to most Democrats and especially to most at the federal level.)
But, it isn't for any of the reasons that the "pundits" and "talking heads" speculate might be the reason why we liberal Democrats aren't very enthusiastic.
I care about the economy and health care and regulation. I'm not happy with what's been done with the economy and health care and regulation. But, it isn't because I think there's been too much done. It's because I don't think enough has been done in any of those areas. I don't blame the Democrats for that. In fact, by and large, I think the Democrats have been pretty heroic in doing all that they could in the face of Republican intransigence. The Democrats have had to compromise for what they could get, and such compromise is a necessary ingredient of a democratic form of government. While I wish the Republicans had been more cooperative, they weren't and I'm okay with the Democrats on those issues.
The economy and health care and regulation are not what has dampened my enthusiasm.
My enthusiasm is low because the Democrats - and particularly President Obama - have compromised on things that they should not have compromised on and on things they didn't have to compromise on.
Guantanamo is still open and still holding prisoners.
The President has averred that there are some prisoners in Guantanamo who will never be released, even if we can't convict them of anything.
Prisoners in Guantanamo are either being tried or facing trial in military courts which did not exist at the time they committed their alleged "crimes" and for violation of laws which did not exist at the time they committed their alleged "crimes."
The President has either refused or has failed to prohibit the illegal kidnapping of foreign citizens in their own countries, a practice euphemistically and misleadingly referred to as "rendition."
American civilians are killing people in countries with which we are not at war with the imprimatur of the United States government.
The President has avowed that those who committed international crimes in the name of the United States while in the employ of the United States will not be prosecuted for their crimes.
We are still violating the Geneva Conventions.
All of these things are wrong. The President did not have to compromise on any one of these things. The President should not have compromised on any one of these things.
The fact that one or all of these things may not be being done as often or as flagrantly as they were during the Bush administration (assuming that were true) is no defense to the fact that they were wrong to do then and they are wrong to do now.
I am reminded of the story of the man who was having dinner with a lady and asked her if she would go to bed with him for a million pounds. She smiled coquettishly and said, "Well, Sir, I think I would." He then asked her if she would go to bed with him for ten pounds, to which she looked horrified and replied, "Why, Sir! What do you think I am?" He then replied, "Madame, we have already established that. Now we are merely haggling over price."
I am not enthusiastic about voting for Democrats because they have compromised on moral issues, apparently for the sake of political expediency, when they didn't have to and should not have done so. I will hold my nose and vote for the Democrats, because I think they are substantially superior to the Republicans, but I'll have to hold my nose. I'm not enthusiastic.
And I find it somewhat complicated to argue with anyone who says that "all politicians are the same." Actually, they are different, but it seems only in quantity, not in quality. About the best I can say is, "Yes, my politicians are morally reprehensible. They just aren't as morally reprehensible as your politicians."
The Democrats are unlikely to bridge the enthusiasm gap when that's the best argument that can be made for them.
I don't doubt that the gap exists, for I feel it myself. I am a liberal Democratic voter who does not feel very enthusiastic about voting for Democrats in this upcoming election. (I insert here the caveat that my feelings do not apply to all Democrats, but, unfortunately, they do to most Democrats and especially to most at the federal level.)
But, it isn't for any of the reasons that the "pundits" and "talking heads" speculate might be the reason why we liberal Democrats aren't very enthusiastic.
I care about the economy and health care and regulation. I'm not happy with what's been done with the economy and health care and regulation. But, it isn't because I think there's been too much done. It's because I don't think enough has been done in any of those areas. I don't blame the Democrats for that. In fact, by and large, I think the Democrats have been pretty heroic in doing all that they could in the face of Republican intransigence. The Democrats have had to compromise for what they could get, and such compromise is a necessary ingredient of a democratic form of government. While I wish the Republicans had been more cooperative, they weren't and I'm okay with the Democrats on those issues.
The economy and health care and regulation are not what has dampened my enthusiasm.
My enthusiasm is low because the Democrats - and particularly President Obama - have compromised on things that they should not have compromised on and on things they didn't have to compromise on.
Guantanamo is still open and still holding prisoners.
The President has averred that there are some prisoners in Guantanamo who will never be released, even if we can't convict them of anything.
Prisoners in Guantanamo are either being tried or facing trial in military courts which did not exist at the time they committed their alleged "crimes" and for violation of laws which did not exist at the time they committed their alleged "crimes."
The President has either refused or has failed to prohibit the illegal kidnapping of foreign citizens in their own countries, a practice euphemistically and misleadingly referred to as "rendition."
American civilians are killing people in countries with which we are not at war with the imprimatur of the United States government.
The President has avowed that those who committed international crimes in the name of the United States while in the employ of the United States will not be prosecuted for their crimes.
We are still violating the Geneva Conventions.
All of these things are wrong. The President did not have to compromise on any one of these things. The President should not have compromised on any one of these things.
The fact that one or all of these things may not be being done as often or as flagrantly as they were during the Bush administration (assuming that were true) is no defense to the fact that they were wrong to do then and they are wrong to do now.
I am reminded of the story of the man who was having dinner with a lady and asked her if she would go to bed with him for a million pounds. She smiled coquettishly and said, "Well, Sir, I think I would." He then asked her if she would go to bed with him for ten pounds, to which she looked horrified and replied, "Why, Sir! What do you think I am?" He then replied, "Madame, we have already established that. Now we are merely haggling over price."
I am not enthusiastic about voting for Democrats because they have compromised on moral issues, apparently for the sake of political expediency, when they didn't have to and should not have done so. I will hold my nose and vote for the Democrats, because I think they are substantially superior to the Republicans, but I'll have to hold my nose. I'm not enthusiastic.
And I find it somewhat complicated to argue with anyone who says that "all politicians are the same." Actually, they are different, but it seems only in quantity, not in quality. About the best I can say is, "Yes, my politicians are morally reprehensible. They just aren't as morally reprehensible as your politicians."
The Democrats are unlikely to bridge the enthusiasm gap when that's the best argument that can be made for them.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The "Ground Zero" Mosque on "Sacred" Ground
I'm sorry, but there was just too much news today.
Did you know that on September 11, 2001, when terrorists flew planes into the the Twin Towers of the Word Trade Center, there were two mosques in those towers - one in each tower? I didn't know that until today.
One can imagine that some of the American Muslims who died that day in those towers might have been praying in one or both of those mosques at the moment of their deaths.
It is alleged that the "Ground Zero" mosque, as it is so incorrectly called (it is not located on any of the tracts that had destroyed buildings from the attacks), is planned to be built on "sacred" ground. Did you know that, on the same block where the Muslim place of worship is planned, there exist today strip clubs and betting parlors?
Sacred ground, you say? Hmmm.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
Did you know that on September 11, 2001, when terrorists flew planes into the the Twin Towers of the Word Trade Center, there were two mosques in those towers - one in each tower? I didn't know that until today.
One can imagine that some of the American Muslims who died that day in those towers might have been praying in one or both of those mosques at the moment of their deaths.
It is alleged that the "Ground Zero" mosque, as it is so incorrectly called (it is not located on any of the tracts that had destroyed buildings from the attacks), is planned to be built on "sacred" ground. Did you know that, on the same block where the Muslim place of worship is planned, there exist today strip clubs and betting parlors?
Sacred ground, you say? Hmmm.
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypocrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
The Deficit
Today it was announced that after the first full fiscal year under President Barrack Obama, a Democrat, the deficit in the United States budget is projected to be eight percent lower than it was last year, a budget year in which the budget was written by the administration of President George W. Bush, a Republican.
Those with short memories may have forgotten that when that President Bush took office, after eight years of a Democratic President, the United States budget actually had a surplus, not a deficit. Unless I am mistaken, that surplus disappeared after one year of Republican administration and, for the next eight years of Republican budgets, the deficit got bigger every year.
Now, with a Democratic administration, it has, once again, begun to grow smaller.
Who are the fiscal conservatives?
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypcrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
Those with short memories may have forgotten that when that President Bush took office, after eight years of a Democratic President, the United States budget actually had a surplus, not a deficit. Unless I am mistaken, that surplus disappeared after one year of Republican administration and, for the next eight years of Republican budgets, the deficit got bigger every year.
Now, with a Democratic administration, it has, once again, begun to grow smaller.
Who are the fiscal conservatives?
"Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees! Hypcrites!" - Jesus of Nazareth
Rewriting History
In the Austin American-Statesman today, there is an opinion piece entitled "Learn how to get along." I don't know who wrote it. It is about a class on the September 11 attacks taught to the students at the apparently very pluralistic Centreville High School in Virginia.
Among the things said in the article about the events of September 11, 2001, and the days which followed, is this: "America, as a whole, was at its best right after the attacks. Our nation didn't repeat history's atrocities with another callous internment of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor."
Just because someone says it, does not mean it is true. Just because it is said often, doesn't make it true. That statement, literally, is true: we didn't inter Japanese Americans again.
But, the thing that statement is intended to get the reader to believe is ... well ... false. Because we interned Muslims, and, in some cases, Muslim Americans.
After the September 11 attacks, we arrested hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young Muslim men who were in this country legally and incarcerated them - in prisons - for months without charge and without any probable cause to believe that they had committed any offense against the United States or any of its citizens.
After the September 11 attacks, we arrested at least one American citizen, on American soil, and held him for years - in a military prison - without allowing him any contact with his family or friends or even with a lawyer. While he may have been guilty of something, he was never charged with the offenses of which the government claimed he was guilty which allegedly justified holding an American citizen in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer and without being charged with any crime. When he was finally charged with something - because the courts were at the point of ordering his release if he wasn't charged - the government charged him with some other crime than the ones for which they claimed they were holding him. His name is Jose Padilla. He "happens" to be Muslim. He is an American citizen. There may have been others, but we know about Mr. Padilla.
To say that we did not commit atrocities after the September 11 attacks, to say that we had learned the bitter lesson after interning Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, is ... simply ... false. We did commit atrocities. Things no nation should ever do to people. Things that, had they been done to Americans in any other country would have been immediately and vociferously condemned by our government as blatant human rights violations. We did them.
If we are ever to learn anything by our past mistakes, we must face those mistakes. We cannot rewrite history because it makes us feel good about ourselves. When we do that, we are condemned to do the same horrible, atrocious things, over and over again.
Among the things said in the article about the events of September 11, 2001, and the days which followed, is this: "America, as a whole, was at its best right after the attacks. Our nation didn't repeat history's atrocities with another callous internment of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor."
Just because someone says it, does not mean it is true. Just because it is said often, doesn't make it true. That statement, literally, is true: we didn't inter Japanese Americans again.
But, the thing that statement is intended to get the reader to believe is ... well ... false. Because we interned Muslims, and, in some cases, Muslim Americans.
After the September 11 attacks, we arrested hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young Muslim men who were in this country legally and incarcerated them - in prisons - for months without charge and without any probable cause to believe that they had committed any offense against the United States or any of its citizens.
After the September 11 attacks, we arrested at least one American citizen, on American soil, and held him for years - in a military prison - without allowing him any contact with his family or friends or even with a lawyer. While he may have been guilty of something, he was never charged with the offenses of which the government claimed he was guilty which allegedly justified holding an American citizen in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer and without being charged with any crime. When he was finally charged with something - because the courts were at the point of ordering his release if he wasn't charged - the government charged him with some other crime than the ones for which they claimed they were holding him. His name is Jose Padilla. He "happens" to be Muslim. He is an American citizen. There may have been others, but we know about Mr. Padilla.
To say that we did not commit atrocities after the September 11 attacks, to say that we had learned the bitter lesson after interning Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, is ... simply ... false. We did commit atrocities. Things no nation should ever do to people. Things that, had they been done to Americans in any other country would have been immediately and vociferously condemned by our government as blatant human rights violations. We did them.
If we are ever to learn anything by our past mistakes, we must face those mistakes. We cannot rewrite history because it makes us feel good about ourselves. When we do that, we are condemned to do the same horrible, atrocious things, over and over again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)