Gentle Readers,
There's an interesting couple of posts at Refference, a blog by a fellow named Jeremy Reff, arguing for a more aesthetic approach to political conversation. I'm agin it, myself, but I haven't any really coherent idea why. I suppose that ultimately, he's assuming that (a) most policy questions have a middle ground, and (b) the way to achieve the necessary agreement among people who disagree, the thing to emphasize is the limited stuff they do agree on, rather than the pluralistic give-and-take of compromise.
I'll try to state that a little better, if I can. Jeff wants me to concentrate on the common ground I share with others; his example is both pro-life and body-rights activists share a revulsion at abortion itself, and would prefer that there be fewer. Therefore, they can and should both work (presumably together) to reduce the number of abortions, whilst agreeing to disagree on the moral aspect. I agree that the both factions should be working to reduce the frequency and necessity of abortions, but neither should they give up try to persuade each other and neutral passers-by of their essential moral position. More importantly, by focusing on achieving their common goals (a good thing, don't get me wrong), they may lose sight of compromise, which is, after all, How We Govern. Too much focus on Getting What My Side Wants (even getting that portion of it that the other side also wants) leads us away from the essential American idea that Nobody Gets Everything They Want. Which would, in the long run, lead to less cooperation, rather than more.
Still, it looks like an interesting blog, doesn't it? Even if he does like Madame Bovary.
Redintegro Iraq,
-Vardibidian.
abortion is a strange example. if people disagree on what a girl-type-person is – traditional soul-factory or modern free spirit – can we work together?
i note for the record that many advocates against fetal murder reject gun control, and that many advocates for maternal choice are communitarian or socialist.
Abortion is always a strange example. Among other things, many anti-abortion activist believe that abortionists are mass murderers, and who even wants to sit down and work out common ground with mass murderers?
Well, other than me.
Perhaps a better example would be motorists, pedestrians, mass transit users, and downtown businesses, who all have many common interests, but who are often reduced to squabbling over resources they can’t all have.
R.I.,
-V.
that’s definitely better.
i don’t know how widely people believe that the abortion fight is just a symptom of another disagreement, which is why it’s endless and hard to mitigate. at least one malady to which the abortion fight is a sneeze is the importance of marriage/mating and child-rearing as cornerstones of philosophical authority, that this is really where people are squaring off. i believe that, anyhow.