Extreme-isms

In 1964, Barry Goldwater gave a speech in which he made one of the most famous statements of 20th century American politics: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

According to David Brooks' op-ed (sub. req'd) in Saturday's NY Times, many Americans are as skeptical of that idea today as we were then.

In his piece, Brooks claims that the public's responses to the Terry Schiavo case, Tom DeLay's ethical problems and the president's  Social Security reform proposals demonstrate that there is concern within the nation about the length of the arc of the cultural pendulum. 

In all three cases, people seem to feel that  the oats-filled Republicans overreached.

In other words, stay out of family decision-making on matters of life and death, don't pee on our legs and try to make us think it's raining on ethics, and please don't scare us about our future by investing all of our retirement in the stock market.  Sounds like common sense.

Problem is, Democrats of equally extreme tone scare people, too.  Alec Baldwin, that master of political wisdom, was on Bill Maher's show the other night and said, "The leadership of the Republican Party are a bunch of sociopathic maniacs who have their lips super-glued to the ass of the conservative right."  See what I mean?  Who's gonna vote for anybody they see Alec standing next to?  Or Jane Fonda, now on her karma rehab/book tour. Like Jack said,  "sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here."

This may come as a shock, but most people in America just want to live their lives in peace.  They don't want to be in a culture war.  They're not interested in jihads, no matter the flavor. 

Me, I'm tired of all the shouting.

I know it's easy to get scared about where things are going when you go through a patch like we've been through recently.  But I have faith that when things get really weird, we'll figure out a way to bring ourselves back to reality. 

Reality in America has historically been something like, 

• work and pay your taxes and you can do pretty much what you want, as long as it's legal
• your stuff is yours and you can pretty much do what you want with it, as long as it's legal
• believe what you want to and say what you want to
• when other people tell you to leave them alone, leave them alone
• the government will do some things for you, but don't expect it to take care of you
• the government's job is to keep the country running by protecting our interests

That's a stupid short list, but I think it hits the high points.  Are we perfect at living up to even this list?  Come on.  Do we try?  I think so.

Fact is, each of us undoubtedly wants that reality to be different in one or more ways.  Like, I'd love to see us think that healthcare is something the government would assure for all of us.  I'm also not all that crazy about how we choose to protect our interests.  And, where do I go to tell direct mailers to leave me alone?

When the folks who agree with how we want it to be different are in power, we're happy; when they're not, we're not.  But the system counts on none of us getting too extreme.  We tried to formalize that thinking with the whole "checks and balances " thing, but I have much more have faith in our collective ability to keep ourselves sane.

I saw it work 40 years ago and I don't have any reason to think it won't keep working now.  I hope.

Comments

[Aleah]

GREAT POST!!

I was thinking about "characters" in America and Canada - those that we tolerate or are amused by and those we fear. One of my commenters pointed out the obvious yet bang-on fact that people are basically fearful of unpredictable behavior - be that in individuals or in nature, we fear the unknown.

I was kind of shocked that so many people supported Bush this time around until it became quite clear - as conservative as he happens to be, he is undeniably George W. And we are comfortable with that, apparently.

I agree with you, although there are things about the system I disagree with and would like altered, the fact that we are, by nature, fearful of unpredictability, that will help us through most situations of conflict. The only problem we face is in a situation of extreme poverty, or cultural implosion, or mass unrest - these conditions breed the Hitlers and the Stalins.

[Tom Guarriello]

Thanks, Aleah. I agree with your comments about the electorate's comfort with GWB. Comfortable and, as hard as it may be for those of us who opposed him, a safer choice than the uninspiring John Kerry. Overcoming Bush's incumbency would have taken a much more inspiring choice than the Democrats put forward in November. And now, we ride through another of those periods in which things aren't as I'd like them to be, but trust in our national gyroscope.

[Paul M. Martin]

Hi Tom -

People today don't seem to understand the self-defeating nature of disrespect. It widens the gap. It entrenches the opponent in his position and makes the advance of one's own cause less likely.

Matthew Holt has a great, informative blog on healthcare, for those interested. You can link onto it from my url, which also has a link to my own healthcare Web site.

[Tom Guarriello]

I like your use of "disrespect" to capture the essence of extremism, Paul. Certainly resonates with my experience of it. I'll check out Matthew's blog and pass it along to my healthcare friends.

[Paul M. Martin]

And nothing sounds worse to me than when the disrespect and divisiveness comes from the mouths of ministers.

The day before yesterday I came across,“The Conservative Posts Blog.” The first thing I saw was an article by J. Grant Swank, Jr., Pastor of New Hope Church. Here’s a sample.

"The anti-Bush cry coming from those liberals in America as well as pro-killers international in New Iraq call for the Coalition to fold up rank and leave yesterday."

I say:

When ministers are unwilling to engage in civil discourse, they fall short of secular society’s best standards and fall away from the higher standards to which they would maintain that their faith calls them.