In the current politically adversarial and heels-dug-in climate, there are several things that have formed a confluence of events in the past few days to once again prove my professor’s point. For the sake of analytical amalgamation, i would like to point out just seven of the much larger number here.
First, a new group called “No Labels” was launched last week to some fanfare. Now, despite the point of the group being to try and promote a civil discourse among thinking people from all across the political spectrum, the extremists on every side have tried to assail the group as soft or inconsequential or unprincipled or any number of other distortions. Next, the tax bill passed over the weekend along with the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuality in the armed forces. Third, New Jersey governor Chris Christie appeared on 60 Minutes on Sunday about New Jersey’s financial peril. Fourth, the lame duck Congressional session is about to end, and the new wave of Repugnican House of Representatives and Senate officials assume their posts in January. Fifth, some financial agencies last week threatened to downgrade the United States financial rating if something fiscally responsible isn’t done soon regarding the National Debt. Sixth, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D – Nevada) was forced to pull a $1.1 Trillion OMNIBUS (budget appropriations) bill last week due to a lack of support, thereby potentially leading to a shutdown of the U.S. government. Seventh, the financial commission’s report and findings – to which all sides pointed as a critical evaluation of our current predicament – have gone either largely ignored or roundly criticized & rejected.
Ugh…
This confluence of events highlights a problem about which i would like to comment today. It would seem intuitive – and, indeed, even perhaps common sense – that people would want to avoid a crisis. To avoid a crisis requires action, but only if You do indeed want to avoid the crisis. Due to some people’s insatiable need for drama or conflict or attention (or whatever their particular neurosis), not everyone wants to avoid a crisis. For example, Rahm Immanuel believes in exploiting crises for political gain. Saul Alinsky wanted to create crises to stress the system to bring about radical change. John F. Kennedy (and, for that matter, the whole Kennedy family) wanted to avoid crises, but he was seemingly always drawn into them. Ronald Reagan wanted to react to crises in ways that prevented them from occurring again. Everyone has a different posture toward the notion of a crisis.
So, here is the problem (at least partially). Oftentimes, people who lean toward the right part of the political spectrum have tendencies toward a more rule-of-law-based predisposition, while people on the left end of the political spectrum often tend to have a more justice-based predisposition. Did You catch it? One might think that having a strong conviction regarding the rule of law is either very similar or precisely the same as having a passion for justice. Wrong.
Now, of course we are also dealing with semantics, nuances of political theory, and shades of gray here that cloud the distinction, but – as commonly manifested throughout American history in the culture, courts, legislatures, religious institutions, and other bastions of thought – these two concepts (rule of law and justice) have grown to have very different interpretations. Those right-leaning zealots who pride themselves on a firm belief in the rule of law with all of its constitutional backing tend to want to fix what’s wrong with policy before they address the abuses of the system, the plight of the afflicted, or the inadequacies of the infrastructure. They are coming at problems from the angle of how to set up the most efficient, useful, and law-based mechanism to address whatever need(s) exist among the minority needing aid at any given point. Those left-leaning enthusiasts who pride themselves on a firm belief in justice with all of its humanitarian support tend to want to fix what’s wrong with the delivery of services before they address the fraud to the system, the burden on the law-abiding citizenry, or the consumptive limits of finite resources. They are coming at the problems from the angle of how to set up the most inclusive, supportive, and fairness-based mechanism to facilitate opportunity.
Now, neither of these approaches is necessarily better than the alternative, but they are just different in their origin, trajectory, eventual arc, and result. If one is governed by the motive of establishing a system that is easily followable and, therefore, somewhat exclusive toward people who refuse to play by the rules versus being driven by the motive of establishing a system that is inherently compassionate and, therefore, somewhat inclusive toward people who may or may not be worthy of empathy, then the dichotomy between the two approaches is highlighted.
This elemental difference between the two sides causes a ships-passing-in-the-night kind of miscommunication phenomenon. Today, i will give You two examples: one from the recent past and one happening right now. In the second term of President George W. Bush, President Bush wanted to address immigration. His approach was based on wanting a political settlement of the issue. He concluded that the best approach politically was to go for a “comprehensive” immigration policy, because he thought it would garner more broad political support. After all, he was a self-described “compassionate conservative,” and – if he could stomach that approach – then surely his fellow Repugnicans could as well. He had some strong supporters, including the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, John McCain. However, he did not anticipate the level of pushback that he encountered from conservatives who insisted on border security being implemented first before substantive discussions regarding a path to citizenship and other issues could be seriously addressed. On the left, some activists stipulated to the security issue being addressed first, but the vast majority were much more concerned with how illegal immigrants were being treated and demanded that comprehensive legislation be crafted in an attempt to address the whole issue at once. Why?
Well, the political fear of the left is that they will die a death by a thousand paper cuts. If they admit that security is the most pressing issue, then they are admitting that crimes are being committed by illegal aliens that predate any treatment issues (never mind any national security concerns). In other words, the illegal immigrants are mistreating others (other would-be immigrants by jumping in line, U.S. citizens by disregarding their superseding claims to services, law enforcement officials by putting everyone in the danger of a criminal enterprise, the laws themselves by reckless disregard for their authority, and innocent people who are not immigrants as much as slaves caught up in human, drug, or other forms of trafficking among other harms) by breaking the law before being mistreated themselves, and that is an admission that progressives see as a perception (in the court of public dialogue) from which there is no recovery. It’s a tone-setter that cannot be overcome. Rule-of-Law folks want incremental, measured, systematic reforms that fix the situation a little more at every step along the way. Justice folks want the end result of a more tolerant, humane, and sympathetic system, so they want it all at once so that they won’t continually have to negotiate based on inanimate facts that constantly get in the way and muddle up what is fair. They don’t want an issue-by-issue debate on what is right so much as a big-picture reformation of what is in keeping with what is right.
There must be a greater aversion to remaining in our pathetic condition than to the disorientation of whatever change will bring about...
Now, with the immigration example in Your back pocket as an example, view the current debate on the budget deficit. Rule-of-Law folks want to address spending first. They want to address overspending. Justice folks don’t want to cede any of that ground. They want to address the overall fairness of redistributive policies. It’s the same shell game with bowls hiding the ping pong ball instead of coconut shell halves.
At the heart of this dichotomy is a more deep-seeded distinction: responsibility versus morality. Ah, but that is for another post. Maybe i’ll write about that when all is right with the world and there is no more war, Grammys go to the most talented musicians instead of the most popular, and the Cowboys are finally Super Bowl Champions again….
No comments:
Post a Comment