I Think I Missed Something

I attended a dinner recently, and at the other end of the table were two friends who were having a heated conversationⁱ about politics. Actually, from my (disad)vantage point, I could only hear snippets of the exchange, but I knowⁱⁱ both of the participants and their points of view, so I'm fairly sure I know what they said.

Part of the argument centered on the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, with one of the parties arguing that both the Constitution and the Supreme Court sanctioned gun ownership, and the other condemning it and contending that we no longer have militias, and that no one needs, or should have, a gun. There were other topics mentioned, but they were similarly laced with polarized rhetoric. It was a typical dispute between a “crazy” conservative and a “bleeding heart” liberal. Both had a lot to say, but neither was listening. And neither had the capacity to say “I don't know.”

Were they involved in the “pro-life” vs. “pro-choice” debate, I suspect that they would also have been poles apart, although the pro-lifer would probably have favored the death penalty, while the pro-choice (i.e. pro-abortion) advocate would have opposed it categorically. And if the subject were the Patriot Act or some similar question regarding National Security and surveillance, One would support “whatever is necessary” while the other would be adamant in expressing horror at the intrusion of the government into our lives and thoughts. Yet contrary to all reason, the latter would encourage legislation that enlarged the government while the former would recoil at such a prospect.

The problem as I see it – and I've written about this before – is that we tend to be so involved in rhetoric and so enamored of our ideology that we haven't the time nor any interest in questioning it. We're not interested in its inherent logic. As I noted recently, we're more interested in accomplishing our goals than in analyzing where our those goals will lead. Logic is not our strong suit.

It all boils down to right and wrong – or at least the views of right and wrong existing in the imaginations of single-minded ideologuesⁱⁱⁱ who see no valid alternative to their views. And there is no room for compromise. It's a “take no prisoners” situation.

Is it too hot? That shouldn't be a surprise. We're undergoing global warming. Are we setting records for the cold? That, too, is a result of the warming. Perhaps there's too much snow or rain, or maybe there's a drought. All of these have a single cause – global warming! And tornadoes? You guessed it. The selfish producers of carbon-based fuels are to blame. They not only pollute the earth at ground level but they destroy the ozone layer above that protects us from the sun's rays. And since we all use carbon based fuels, we are all responsible.^iv

Of course there are others who are convinced that those who rant about warming are disingenuous, or simply misinformed – the historic facts don't support the claims. Not only are we going through a warming period consistent with the variation that has always taken place on earth, and not something based on fuel usage, but the blaming of all weather conditions, both desirable and undesirable, on a single cause is just plain “junk science.” Humans are not responsible for global warming and they cannot cure it. Those contending thus are as certain of their position as are the people whom they oppose.^v

Another example of the phenomenon is in the news all the time. Russia is taking over Ukraine; Iran maintains its “right” to enrich uranium, although there is universal anxiety over the potential for developing nuclear weapons; genocide is a daily occurrence in many African countries; Christians are being killed by Muslims and the battles between Hindus and Muslims are vicious; the “Arab Spring” has turned into winter; there is unrest in China, South America, and Iraq, and there are wars and conflicts in, among many other countries, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia, and Kashmir. There are even numerous assassinations and other murders in the context of the drug wars in Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere.

Yet the world^vi seems to have found only one way to stop the injustices it sees all around. The worst offender is Israel. Whether it involves Church bodies, academics, nations and international organizations, consumers, or simply individuals with prejudices, the response they propose for all the problems we face is to boycott Israel. Indeed, the BDS movement^vii is the answer to anything to do with the Jews and enables you to deny antisemitism while indulging in it. And if such an accusation should arise, it's probably being made by the Jews^viii who use it to smear anyone who disagrees with them.

Another illustration of the phenomenon, and I'll leave it at this although there are numerous other examples, is the current dispute over homosexuality. There are many who believe that it is the cause of all the disasters to which we are subject. Humanity is punished – especially the countries and localities where it is tolerated – for such behavior. They view natural disasters as the penalty for the actions of a single “deviant,” or the toleration by society of the LBGTQ^ix movement as a whole.

At the same time, for supporters of the movement, the absence of their members from some activity is proof of sexism. Television shows, movies, plays, and written works that lack someone with their sexual orientation are intolerable. As with other manifestations of the “traditional family” and “traditional values” in general, such views have no place in the twenty-first century outlook. Absence of a recognizable member of the LGBTQ community is ipso facto evidence of prejudice.

That, sadly, seems to be the way societies – not just our own – are turning. Not only do large groups find themselves unable to recognize and accept the truth,^x but they cannot tolerate the idea that there is any virtue in the views of those who disagree. There's no room for reassessment of their views and certainly not with compromise of those views so as to achieve a harmonious society.^xi Mind over matter. We live by the rule that the “underdog” is always right and anyone who has a different view, or who favors the ideas he was taught as a child – including the love of his own country – is wrong. We live in a post-traditional world, and we live with new truths rejecting any reliance on the old. In our multicultural, morally relative reality, we accept almost anything, especially if it is a denial of what our parents believed. It is rebellion writ large. It requires that we take the side of anyone lacking power – whether or not he is right. We believe that might makes wrong. Certainly that's the mantra in the United States.

But I must be missing something. It seems to me that we're looking for “right” in the wrong places. To a degree, we want to be different like everyone else. We want to be virtuous in an evil world. But most of all we want to be right. No, we are right, and we support the right causes even if others oppose them.^xii We accept whatever those whom we see as the weak say, and do whatever they want us to do. And we rebut the strong even if, were we to pay attention, their arguments would make sense. But why listen to such tripe? I think we have a kind of blindered vision that directs us to what it is acceptable to see and believe. And we're prevented from seeing (or thinking) anything else, tolerant of the views of others we consider oppressed.^xiii We place tolerance above realism. We are fanatics who espouse the received wisdom espoused by the good guys and we do, rather than think. We don't hear anything that contradicts our preconceived ideas, and we accept unconsidered principles as we engage in what used to be considered scapegoating.

So we're pigheaded and left with endless arguments in which no one will ever convince his opponent. And we're left with a society that will go its own way – one we may consider foolhardy – irrespective of logic. But that's okay. The pendulum will swing back and everything in vogue today will be rejected. Of course that won't end the arguments and allow us to compromise. We're all too sure of ourselves. So we'll switch sides or find something different to argue about.

Next episode: “The Right To Know” – Of course that doesn't mean you understand.

I       Actually it was an argument. There's no point in mincing words.

ii      And respect.

iii     Fanatics! But I feel so judgmental writing that.

iv      The liberal is likely to hold this opinion.

v       That's the view of the conservative.

vi      As exemplified by the endless condemnations generated by the UN.

vii     Boycott, divestment, sanctions. Of all the countries in the world, and with all the conflicts and injustices that we suffer, all the groups aim their weapons only at Israel. They are not concerned about anything else.

viii    Jews make up only two tenths of one percent of the world's population yet they are believed to control all the instruments of power, and antisemites maintain that they oppress everyone else.

ix      Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer. As with BDS, we seem to have an affinity for acronyms. That's been one of our national fixations since the alphabet soup of the Roosevelt administration (FDR not TR).

x       I'm the only one who knows what that is and I'm not telling.

xi      That's the way politicians gain votes, and “intellectuals” earn brownie points.

xii     And often because others oppose them. It's guilt by association. If a “bad guy” has a certain view, it must be wrong. And anyone who takes him to task – who is thus on my side – deserves my support. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

xiii    No, we automatically accept them.