Plum Crazy

This weekend, I was participating in a couple of discussions in a politics forum I belong to. One was with a conservative on the issue of the symbolism of the Confederate flag. The other was with a liberal on the subject of the Clinton trial. These two seemingly very different conversations had one thing in common – In both my opponents effectively questioned the standing of others to render criticism on the subject at hand.

In the Confederate flag debate, the conservative, a nice, sincere guy from Texas, essentially said that northerners couldn’t critique racism in the South without being hypocrites because racism also exists in the North. I find that the equivalent of saying that somebody who lives near an abortion clinic would be hypocritical to oppose abortion rights due solely to their proximity to an abortion provider. Not because they themselves had encouraged their unwed teenage to seek an abortion two weeks ago, but just because of where they happen to live.

In the discussion about Clinton, I had asked the liberal, a nice, sincere woman from Louisiana, if she had no problem with the fact that the President, the man sworn to uphold our laws, had committed perjury. Let me backtrack and tell you that the topic of Clinton had arisen out of speculation that Bush might nominate Kenneth Starr to the Supreme Court. She ended her response to me with “And no president has ever lied? Nixon never lied? Reagan never lied? Bush sr (sic) never lied?” Please know that I did not and have not in the past made such a preposterous claim, nor did I breathe a word about any of them in my original question. Why would I? The topic was Clinton.

This brings me to a trend I have noticed – It is becoming increasingly difficult to have any legitimate debate on a topic without first having to demonstrate your impartiality to the satisfaction of all other participants. I find this a worrisome trend for several reasons.

It is troubling because we are now assumed guilty until proven innocent. It has also become incumbent upon us to demonstrate our innocence, rather than upon the “prosecution” to demonstrate our guilt. This is directly contrary to certain principles long revered in this country and upheld as a standard for others. Any person should be assumed to have standing to discuss any subject of public significance simply because they are. We can certainly question their knowledge of the topic and/or the sincerity of their position. Should we, however, choose to question their sincerity, we should have good reason to do so and offer that reason up. For instance, “I question your commitment to affirmative action because you are a member of the KKK,” works well. “I question your commitment to affirmative action because you live in Georgia,” does not.

The trend is also concerning because it implies that there is something wrong with partisanship and opposing viewpoints. A partisan is somebody who is committed to the principles of their party. That is a good thing, within broad, generally accepted social norms. It shows that someone is capable of commitment to a cause greater than themselves and is willing to work to advance it. It is not the same thing as blind zealotry, which can be dangerous. Although I, personally, am not a political partisan, as I choose to disavow our political parties, that does not imply that there are not principles to which I am committed, or that I find partisanship to be a bad thing. Partisans can admit that there are flaws in their ideology and understand that sometimes compromise is good and necessary. Zealots cannot. We should protect ourselves from zealots, but not from partisans. Opposing viewpoints are useful as well. If there are no opposing viewpoints, it is because the pendulum has stopped swinging. Opposition keeps us moving. Hopefully we move forward.

Lastly, this trend is disturbing because it stifles discussion. If, in the course of debate on a given topic, we are expected to mention every other instance of anything remotely similar, we will never be able to discuss anything. It is, firstly, an attempt to deflect the conversation off topic. It is also completely unworkable as a social construct. The net effect of it is to prevent resolution or consensus being reached on the subject. Multiply that by the number of major issues we need to address, and society will stagnate. We will be in a perpetual state of deadlock, groaning under the weight of this elusive, or perhaps illusive, balance. Balance is good in moderation, but on a societal scale it is only achieved when the pendulum stops dead center. Once that happens, we will be overtaken by a society that is still moving. You cannot advance if you do not move.

I did have one somewhat sarcastic solution. We should come up with a set of disclaimers for use in any discussion. For example, “The fact that I have criticized President Clinton does not imply that I believe other politicians, including, but not limited to, Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, have not committed acts worthy of criticism.” Or “The fact that I have criticized racism in the South does not imply that I believe racism does not exist in other regions or that I condone this other-regional racism.” If you have suggestions for other disclaimers, please let me know.