The Right to Be Stupid

The Liberal and the Conservative communities in American politics are both imperfect movements.  They both have good ideas, a few leaders who are truly interested in the betterment of the nation, and a significant portion of the voting public that is fiercely loyal to their ideals.  Unfortunately, they each have a fairly sizable group of idiots who seem to reside mainly in leadership positions for each national party.  This particular post is looking at that extreme element in each movement; not the portion of each that tends towards the middle and moderation.  That center is becoming more and more difficult to inhabit.  The decisions that each of us as citizens are faced with are increasingly polarized; posed in terms of win/lose, far left/far right, with me/against me, or perhaps the most despicable of all…evil vs. good.  How the fringe elements of each movement have managed to rise to such a level of influence as to disproportionately dictate the principles for the entire group is something I will leave to the history books.  I will, however, comment on the real life impact of that phenomenon.

Accepting the premise that it is the foundation of our nation’s government and at the risk of gross oversimplification, the fundamental difference between the Far Left and the Far Right is their view of the Constitution.  The Far Right purports to be strict constitutionalists.  To them, the Constitution is a document that was written in such a way as to be literally and eternally applicable.  The remedy for any necessary variation or revision to its original content is the amendment process.   In their view, it is the role of the federal Judiciary to interpret the laws and regulations promulgated by the Legislative and Executive branches as either being compliant with the Constitution’s written word or not.  They insist that legal remedies for the inevitable and evolutionary changes in our society and government be initiated and implemented in accordance with a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  And if that process becomes unworkable or dysfunctional due to political gridlock, then so be it.  The status quo shall be maintained until some nonspecific solution at some unspecified time in the future arrives to remove the impediments to orderly and constitutional change.

The Far Left has embraced the concept of the living Constitution.  While participating in the constitutional processes of governance, they insist on the premise that even though the Constitution is the bedrock document for our country, it is an aged document that must be brought into the current framework of our society through both interpretation and implementation.  They see it as an original framework that was fully intended, even necessarily mandated, to evolve as our culture changes and morphs through generations.  More than any other area of disagreement between the two political philosophies, their differing views on the role of the federal Judiciary is in stark contrast to the Far Right.  And even though both parties, depending on their majority/minority status at the time, have embraced or condemned extraordinary Legislative and Executive actions; the Far Left clearly and definitively see the Judiciary as overlords of social and governmental change.  This Judicial activism is a fundamental canyon that exists between the two movements and the strategic leverage of the competition lies in the unpredictable process of Executive appointments; how they fall, where they fall, and when they fall.  And even though it gets far less attention than the Legislative and Executive happenings in our government, this particular battle between the two movements is the true war of wills that most impacts the American people.

Each side has obvious flaws to their rigid beliefs and actions, but there is one particular trait possessed by the Far Left that has become extremely dangerous to the health of our nation.  The Far Right can be didactic and self-righteous in their profession of conservative values.  They are oftentimes clearly disingenuous when they publicly acknowledge the Far Left’s right to be different; but then publicly state this right with a “looking down your nose” attitude.  Additionally, they sometimes are too quick to equate the terms of the debate with a win or lose definition; abusing the “compromise on practice but never on principle” axiom.  They sometimes tend towards framing everything as principle.  The Far Left oftentimes calls these Far Right tendencies small-minded.  And if we want to keep the debate on a technical and above-board level, that description is pretty fair.  But the development that concerns me most is the ever-increasing actions by the Far Left to frame political debates in stark terms of “good versus evil” and their solution to political defeat being “burn it down”.  The snobbery and high-handed airs taken on by the Far Left are legendary in their display.  They have always seen themselves as superior beings to those that might disagree with them and have always thought that they know better what is best for all than anyone else involved in the process…including all.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter

@centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Tolerance is a necessary ingredient for democracy.  There must be room in our society, culture, and government for the coexistence of different values and ideals.  Now there will be occasions when tolerance is superseded by a fundamental notion of right or wrong.  Such tension is exquisitely illustrated by the ongoing debates surrounding abortion, capital punishment, or gay rights.  These, and others, are the great questions of our time and will define us as a nation and as a people.  Our ability, or inability, to discover a way to settle these great debates in a civil fashion is the quintessential challenge to our existence as a country.  But setting aside the bigger and more profound questions, which are in relative terms small in number; the way that each political faction has been approaching the more mundane issues of governance lately is problematic.  While the Far Right has certainly used Legislative trickery and Executive actions to their benefit when in power; they have not exercised as great a license in these areas as the Far Left.  And there can be no debate about the clear abuse of the Judiciary power that has been exhibited by the Far Left.  Liberal activist Judges are pushing judicial limits all across our nation.  If you accept the proposition of a living constitution; you must also accept the inherent dangers of irrational federal Judges exhibiting poor judgment in autonomously altering constitutional interpretation. 

But the extreme Liberal community in our nation seems to have entered into a new area of dogma.  They now advocate tolerance simply for the sake of tolerance.  They have taken the “agree with me or be damned” argument to new heights.  They have forgotten how to lose graciously and have adopted a new approach of “control it or burn it down”.   Taken at its face value, tolerance for the sake of tolerance is simply an absence of principle.  There are certain things that cannot, and should not, be tolerated.  On the other hand, by and large, in a nation such as ours that was built on diversity and autonomy; reasonable tolerance is a necessary ingredient for America.  The Far Right must come to grips with the fact that every time a disagreement comes up, it cannot be automatically placed in the principle rather than the practice category.  The Far Left must understand that every time someone dares to disagree with their specific prescription for living, it is not nuclear war and their opponents are not Neanderthals.  In our country, each one of us has the right to be stupid…as long as that stupidity does not infringe on another’s rights.  That, my friends, is the delicate balance that is being pursued.