"the Middle"
Hey Folks,
After the election I heard Gwen Eiffel (of PBS fame) interviewing young people regarding politics. One young man said he was tired of watching people yelling at each other and wanted more discussion in "the middle."
Aha! That's how it happens. Brainwash them when they're young, and the system is safe.
Well, unless a discussion is focused on solving a real problem, and that discussion operates on a rational, "reality based," i.e. scientific, basis, there is no "middle."
Potholes in the springtime are a real problem for almost everyone. Each of us would like to have our personally familiar potholes fixed immediately (an extreme position). Potholes, however, are repaired by governmental entities which enjoy limited resources. All the potholes cannot be fixed immediately; that job is beyond any city's ability. So, we all rationally accept a less extreme, "middle," solution: most cities attempt to fix the worst potholes in the most traveled areas first and then move to less dangerous and disruptive traffic hazards. They neither attempt to fix all of them at once nor do they ignore the problem entirely. They "move to the middle," and that is quite sensible.
In this context the young man's objection to screaming combatants from opposing extremes makes sense, but in the context of politics, it is meaningless.
If the goal actually is to solve a real problem, and two opposing views are vying in good faith to solve the problem, one way or another the differences will be worked out over time until either the problem is solved or both camps are forced to admit that neither solution works and a third is needed. There is very little reason here for the kind of screaming nonsense to which the young man rightly objected.
The garbage circulating now, however, about moving to the middle is not from this context.
The hot-button issues on which the talking heads and scribbling hands are demanding a "moderate," collegial approach are not real problems and are not discussed on a rational basis. As such, they have no "middle."
What they are talking about is nothing more than the continuing war between "faith" and "reason." Where these two perspectives clash or are spun as clashing, there is no middle. Moreover, there is no way to discuss them "in the middle." There is no way to "move them to the middle." The positions are "extreme" and entrenched because neither side speaks the other's language. Worse, while the "rational" side is open to challenge via contradictory objective data, the "faith" side is absolute and not amenable to challenge.
For example, the notion that homosexuality is an abomination (rather than a normal part of biological diversity) is supposed (by some) to be God's direct teaching via the Bible (his "holy word"). There is no proof or evidence, however, to support or challenge the claim that the Bible is either God's word or holy; such a position is not rational; it is simply a matter of faith.
As such, it is impossible to debate. One can scream, "God says!!" or "There is no god!!" but one can offer no evidence to support either position. One can only scream unrelated nonsense and pretend it means something. In this context there is no middle and there can be no middle.
Now, I grew up believing that the "founding fathers" had solved this dilemma by "moving it to the middle" in a legitimate way: by establishing a "free country."
For a long time I believed that in the USA people could hold any religious belief they wanted (including pagan beliefs), build their churches, teach the religion to their kids, and knock on doors of non-believers to spread the "good news" if that was their thing; and that people could have no religion or even preach atheism and knock on doors of believers to "free them from their delusions" if that was their thing.
THAT is the "middle." Apparently, though, we are no longer officially following this plan. Instead, some among us believe they are being persecuted for their faith by not being allowed to impose their faith on everyone else. That is an extreme view, and it makes "compromise" impossible.
If one claims persecution unless everyone who doesn't agree with one is forced to agree, that is an absolute. If allowing one to believe and promulgate whatever one wants, while allowing others the same right isn't a compromise, isn't the "middle," what is?
The "game" or "con" were experiencing is: getting the one side to "compromise" by allowing the other to impose as much of its agenda as possible today and impose more later (again arguing "compromise"), on and on until there is only one side left.
That's what gets fed to our young people as good faith discussion, moving to the middle, working together, and compromise.
And this is not a phenomenon related solely to religion. It is a child of the Right in general.
As in the religious example, the "extremes" being denigrated recently by so many establishment "experts" involve one side which is rationally/reality/scientifically based; and another which like "faith" cannot be supported by evidence from the real world. Similarly to those religious folks who doubt their own "faith" lest everyone agree with them; the more zealous among the right know that they hold arbitrary positions specifically designed to maintain and advance themselves and are scared to death that the vast masses of people - those they are abusing - might find out the truth.
Unlike the religious zealots, though, the solution of letting everyone (in a free country) believe whatever they want never has been a solution. The whole point of the self-serving dogma they work so hard to impose upon everyone else is not "protecting a personal faith that sustains them spiritually or psychologically," but convincing everyone else to embrace a perception that preserves the irrational and unjust prerogatives of the ruling minority.
In this scenario there is no room for "compromise," only screaming. No matter what objective data, no matter what scientific evidence, no matter what observational reports are presented regarding "agent orange," pollution, the death penalty, taxes, the economy, drugs, global warming, racism, immigration, public education, reproduction, gender orientation, outsourcing, what have you; the right - like the religiously faithful - have already decided the "truth" that best fits their needs before the discussion began; no discussion is necessary, only submission. Failing that, there is screaming.
As a result, there is no moving to the middle; there is not even the thought of moving to the middle. The prime directive is to impose the pre-ordained view on everyone else; and we're back to "compromising" away some of the people's humanity now and "compromising" more of it away later - on and on until there is nothing left.
Well, I agree with the youngster. We need more discussion in the middle.
But we're not going to get it. The nutcases who can't understand that separation of church and state PROTECTS their religious rights from nuts like them in other religions and from conniving politicians in government aren't going to change. Likewise the vampire oligarchs, their retainers, and their demented wanna-bees are not going to suddenly adopt altruism or even a basic respect for humanity.
The screaming down of anything that speaks to freedom or justice for the masses of people in this world will continue. And, far from advocating a genteel splitting of the differences, I suggest we add kicking and biting to our repertoire.
- Uke Man
After the election I heard Gwen Eiffel (of PBS fame) interviewing young people regarding politics. One young man said he was tired of watching people yelling at each other and wanted more discussion in "the middle."
Aha! That's how it happens. Brainwash them when they're young, and the system is safe.
Well, unless a discussion is focused on solving a real problem, and that discussion operates on a rational, "reality based," i.e. scientific, basis, there is no "middle."
Potholes in the springtime are a real problem for almost everyone. Each of us would like to have our personally familiar potholes fixed immediately (an extreme position). Potholes, however, are repaired by governmental entities which enjoy limited resources. All the potholes cannot be fixed immediately; that job is beyond any city's ability. So, we all rationally accept a less extreme, "middle," solution: most cities attempt to fix the worst potholes in the most traveled areas first and then move to less dangerous and disruptive traffic hazards. They neither attempt to fix all of them at once nor do they ignore the problem entirely. They "move to the middle," and that is quite sensible.
In this context the young man's objection to screaming combatants from opposing extremes makes sense, but in the context of politics, it is meaningless.
If the goal actually is to solve a real problem, and two opposing views are vying in good faith to solve the problem, one way or another the differences will be worked out over time until either the problem is solved or both camps are forced to admit that neither solution works and a third is needed. There is very little reason here for the kind of screaming nonsense to which the young man rightly objected.
The garbage circulating now, however, about moving to the middle is not from this context.
The hot-button issues on which the talking heads and scribbling hands are demanding a "moderate," collegial approach are not real problems and are not discussed on a rational basis. As such, they have no "middle."
What they are talking about is nothing more than the continuing war between "faith" and "reason." Where these two perspectives clash or are spun as clashing, there is no middle. Moreover, there is no way to discuss them "in the middle." There is no way to "move them to the middle." The positions are "extreme" and entrenched because neither side speaks the other's language. Worse, while the "rational" side is open to challenge via contradictory objective data, the "faith" side is absolute and not amenable to challenge.
For example, the notion that homosexuality is an abomination (rather than a normal part of biological diversity) is supposed (by some) to be God's direct teaching via the Bible (his "holy word"). There is no proof or evidence, however, to support or challenge the claim that the Bible is either God's word or holy; such a position is not rational; it is simply a matter of faith.
As such, it is impossible to debate. One can scream, "God says!!" or "There is no god!!" but one can offer no evidence to support either position. One can only scream unrelated nonsense and pretend it means something. In this context there is no middle and there can be no middle.
Now, I grew up believing that the "founding fathers" had solved this dilemma by "moving it to the middle" in a legitimate way: by establishing a "free country."
For a long time I believed that in the USA people could hold any religious belief they wanted (including pagan beliefs), build their churches, teach the religion to their kids, and knock on doors of non-believers to spread the "good news" if that was their thing; and that people could have no religion or even preach atheism and knock on doors of believers to "free them from their delusions" if that was their thing.
THAT is the "middle." Apparently, though, we are no longer officially following this plan. Instead, some among us believe they are being persecuted for their faith by not being allowed to impose their faith on everyone else. That is an extreme view, and it makes "compromise" impossible.
If one claims persecution unless everyone who doesn't agree with one is forced to agree, that is an absolute. If allowing one to believe and promulgate whatever one wants, while allowing others the same right isn't a compromise, isn't the "middle," what is?
The "game" or "con" were experiencing is: getting the one side to "compromise" by allowing the other to impose as much of its agenda as possible today and impose more later (again arguing "compromise"), on and on until there is only one side left.
That's what gets fed to our young people as good faith discussion, moving to the middle, working together, and compromise.
And this is not a phenomenon related solely to religion. It is a child of the Right in general.
As in the religious example, the "extremes" being denigrated recently by so many establishment "experts" involve one side which is rationally/reality/scientifically based; and another which like "faith" cannot be supported by evidence from the real world. Similarly to those religious folks who doubt their own "faith" lest everyone agree with them; the more zealous among the right know that they hold arbitrary positions specifically designed to maintain and advance themselves and are scared to death that the vast masses of people - those they are abusing - might find out the truth.
Unlike the religious zealots, though, the solution of letting everyone (in a free country) believe whatever they want never has been a solution. The whole point of the self-serving dogma they work so hard to impose upon everyone else is not "protecting a personal faith that sustains them spiritually or psychologically," but convincing everyone else to embrace a perception that preserves the irrational and unjust prerogatives of the ruling minority.
In this scenario there is no room for "compromise," only screaming. No matter what objective data, no matter what scientific evidence, no matter what observational reports are presented regarding "agent orange," pollution, the death penalty, taxes, the economy, drugs, global warming, racism, immigration, public education, reproduction, gender orientation, outsourcing, what have you; the right - like the religiously faithful - have already decided the "truth" that best fits their needs before the discussion began; no discussion is necessary, only submission. Failing that, there is screaming.
As a result, there is no moving to the middle; there is not even the thought of moving to the middle. The prime directive is to impose the pre-ordained view on everyone else; and we're back to "compromising" away some of the people's humanity now and "compromising" more of it away later - on and on until there is nothing left.
Well, I agree with the youngster. We need more discussion in the middle.
But we're not going to get it. The nutcases who can't understand that separation of church and state PROTECTS their religious rights from nuts like them in other religions and from conniving politicians in government aren't going to change. Likewise the vampire oligarchs, their retainers, and their demented wanna-bees are not going to suddenly adopt altruism or even a basic respect for humanity.
The screaming down of anything that speaks to freedom or justice for the masses of people in this world will continue. And, far from advocating a genteel splitting of the differences, I suggest we add kicking and biting to our repertoire.
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home