One of the biggest problems with modern political discourse is the ridiculous ideological intransigence that characterizes both ends of the conservative-to-liberal spectrum, and more to the point, those ends of both political parties. To say it's discouraging to those of us who aren't easily pigeonholed is to put it very mildly.I'm put in mind of this reading a good account in the New York Times today of something I was blissfully unaware of: an apparent flame war on the neoconservative-ish right over Charles Johnson, the man behind the Little Green Footballs site. I was aware of the site in the days following 9/11, certainly, but quickly tuned it out because the diatribes there (even more so from the commenters) were chockablock with nitwit ad hominem attacks on those who dared question the official government story, the war in Iraq, or most anything else on the neocon agenda.
Of course, neocons were hardly alone in that regard. Even though I'm generally opposed to war, I couldn't help but notice that some on the antiwar left were every bit as dehumanizing in their ad hom attacks. There was no careful consideration of opposing opinions and arguments; just more of the "You suck/No, you suck" shouting that, of course, leads absolutely nowhere. (A similar function is served by repeating stupid nicknames for one's political opponents, e.g. "libtard," "repugnican," etc. Allow me to suggest that it is entirely possible for someone to disagree with you without suffering a sudden loss of intelligence.)
The Internet didn't originate this phenomenon, and it certainly wouldn't stop if the Internet were shut down today. But the Internet does put it out there, infects it with value, and blows it up. Thus does ideology ossify and eventually fossilize, becoming disconnected from the confusion and complexity of reality, and all the louder for its insistence that such reality doesn't exist. Worse, careful consideration of an idea or policy is utterly discouraged—and if it leads to a change of mind, even a slightly nuanced position, it draws not merely hostility, but hatred. Nor will changing your mind earn you no friends who agree with your position. Or, as Jonathan Dee elegantly puts it in his Times piece on Johnson, "Gray ... is not a popular shade on the Internet." True dat!
So, I often wind up with tiny pockets of unconnected Internet contacts with whom I share a specific interest. I think the business of war is awful—sometimes (rarely, really) necessary, but awful all the same, and something to be regarded with regret over its apparent necessity, rather than celebration of its centrality to one's national identity. Since the humanitarian effort in Haiti is a very current topic, it serves to illuminate these problems to me. I think the U.S. military intervention there is ill advised, in part because of our history of meddling in Haiti's affairs (to that nation's detriment, very often), and in part because once we're there, we have a hard time getting out. And then there are the budget issues: Military occupation is expensive, and we are, as a nation, beyond broke. Now, none of this is in any way a condemnation of what the military is actually doing in Haiti, and it certainly isn't critical of the humanitarian intervention of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), concerned individuals, and the outreach coming from the Dominican Republic and other Caribbean nations. To the contrary, I embrace the outreach, and have put my own money where my mouth is on this. So, I have to admit that my position on all this is informed by history primarily, but is also unfinished, a work in progress. Life is messy that way.
And I have changed my mind on some rather contentious issues. Gay marriages springs to mind. I was opposed to the idea, fearful of introducing radical cultural change and what that might mean to our already-fractured traditions, such as they are. Many in the "progressive" camp seem to believe that change is always for the better; to my mind, the 20th century put the lie to that idea. Change certainly can lead to better days, a la the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, but it can also become hardened identity politics, a la the many minority rights movements that still divide us into opposing camps today. Change can also lead to unmitigated evil. Remember, communism was once considered "progressive," and dishonesty on a grand scale (from governments and ideological lackeys) worked very hard to hide the brutal, genocidal excesses that communist governments invariably indulge in. Big government sans a respect for individual rights always leads in that direction. But, on the issue of gay marriage, I kept thinking about it, discussed with friends for and against (not always civilly, I regret to say), and kept weighing my own position. Last year, I decided that while I am personally uncomfortable with the idea, it is nonetheless for individuals to decide how they will officialize their relationships as consenting adults, and the state should not intervene in any way. (I also believe the state should have no role in "straight" marriage, short of providing the legal mechanism for upholding the terms of the contract.) As a Christian, I am uncertain of the Bible's exact teaching on this subject, although certainly homosexuality is condemned in the Old Testament law, and certainly Jesus Christ and Paul condemn sexual licentiousness repeatedly in the New. How that OT law is understood by Jesus and by Paul is simply not clear to my eyes; one has to make a jump in thinking to link the OT condemnation to the NT's broader warnings about sexual irresponsibility.
Having put that out there, I have encountered condemnation from other Christians. Not disagreement; condemnation, including sincere questions about the authenticity of my faith. So we agree to disagree, from my point of view, or I'm going to hell for my lack of faith, according to theirs. That can't be mended, at least not by me.
On the other hand, those who were aware of my original position and how it evolved haven't exactly been understanding or even vaguely sympathetic as my position changed. My point? Changing one's mind is regarded as an ultimate betrayal, as hypocrisy writ large, by those who take strong political positions, who are monolithic in their thinking on such issues. God help the ones who question the agenda, regardless of which point on the ideological continuum they find themselves at any given moment.
0 comments:
Post a Comment