Practicing Black and White in a Gray World

Along with many others, I have often addressed the issues of political incivility and compromise in past months.  The schism that lies between the far right and the far left seems to growing wider with each passing day and the language that flows between the two is becoming more and more callous and crude.  The image of either President Trump or Speaker Pelosi as victorious warriors regaled in armor and standing astride their bloodied opponent is pretty much accepted as normal these days.  Kill or be killed is the mantra du jour.

There is an old saying, which I cannot accurately attribute, that reads: Compromise on practice, but never on principle.  Apparently, all politicians these days are standing on principle.  NOT !  Principle has pretty much taken a backseat to self-promotion in our government and society.  Another old saying goes: If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.  I fear that a good portion of our American voters are discounting the former part of that saying and exemplifying the latter.  They have proven to be easy marks for the agenda-driven campaigns of our media and political establishment. 

The world we live in today is far from being as simple as black and white.  The thorny issues, both domestic and international, that arise on a daily basis are typically complex and multi-dimensional questions bereft of simple and obvious answers.  They clearly reside in the gray area.  It is commonly not an issue of right or wrong; but more what is the best solution to the problem.  This is a rational approach in attempting to deal with diverse and pragmatic opinions regarding matters that impact many lives. 

But while acknowledging that many questions lie in the gray area and do not have simple black and white solutions; we must be careful that we do not allow the noble effort of compromising on the final action to drown out the importance of principled positions leading to the final agreements.  The element that makes lively debate over pertinent issues productive and meaningful is the fact that opposing sides stand on principles that are deeply held and respected.  This is an honest and transparent approach to debate that can help lead to good results. 

Just as these bedrock principles must be respected in the stages leading up to a final solution; so must the value of compromise be respected when arriving at an ultimate resolution.  If the allegiance to principle is held too closely, it can lead to stubborn intransigence that will eliminate the possibility of a final agreement with the opposition.  On the other hand, if the art of compromise extends backwards from the final agreement into the substantive debate that should precede it; the result of the whole exercise will be so diluted as to be useless and ineffective.  This is the outcome we have seen in recent years as a result of many legislative compromises…a meaningless bowl of mush.  It is not right or wrong; represents no position in a true sense; and is simply…there.

It goes without saying that there will be times when the primary question posed is so succinct and straight-forward that there is simply no room for compromise; when the entire subject can be distilled down to principle.  In these cases, we are simply down to a question of who has the stronger hand; what we might call raw politics.  However, instances of these types are rare and are typically driven by the desire of one side to foist their opinions upon the other side.  It is far easier to move directly to strongly-held beliefs than it is to seriously listen to other views with which you might disagree.  When one party in a disagreement reaches the point where they have absolute belief in their own wisdom, totally disregarding the ideas and rights of the opposition…well then, we are dancing around the edges of a totalitarian authority that is far removed from the ideals upon which this nation was built.  I fear that this is the territory our American government is now approaching. 

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.

The rights and liberties posed by the Democrats are, to them, inalienable and not open to discussion.  Likewise, the Republicans hold a certain list of rights and liberties close to their hearts and consider them to be likewise inalienable.  We seem to be in a situation where the principled part of the discussion continues ceaselessly and we somehow never arrive at the final stage where compromise kicks in.  The obvious solution to this impasse would be the willingness of either side to ultimately respect the fundamental rights of the other side to live their lives in a fashion that allows life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it does not inordinately intrude on the life, liberty, and pursuit of others.  Live and let live, within reasonable parameters…man, aren’t those words for dissection?

Democrats demand tolerance for gender rights and familial choices.  Republicans demand tolerance for gun ownership and religious practices.  Democrats demand that their agenda include Republican support. Republicans demand that their agenda include Democrat support.  It seems to be insufficient that one side or the other might tolerate the other’s causes; the demand appears to be that the other side embraces these causes.  Both Parties are adhering to sincere principles that they believe to be right and proper for the people and the nation.  Both tend to overlook the fundamental rule of tolerance inasmuch as it must extend beyond what you personally hold to be true and dear.  Authentic tolerance is not the acceptance of behavior or practice that you somewhat dislike; it is the willingness to accept such a behavior or practice by others when you are enthusiastically opposed to it in your own life.  If tolerance was easy, there would be a lot fewer assault and battery cases in our nation.  It is easy to talk the talk; it is far more difficult to walk the walk.

This is the tricky part of political compromise.  How do we distinguish and determine when the opposing positions in the early debate stages rise to the level of principles that cannot be violated or are, in fact, differences of opinion that can be tolerated within reasonable limits?  Looking for simple answers to complex questions is indeed tricky business.  The quest for the remedy to this conundrum must begin with a clear and bipartisan agreement on the exact role of government.  Government cannot answer all of the questions that our society and culture begs.  Government is inherently inefficient and oftentimes ineffective when it chooses to address the needs of the citizenry.  At its best, it tends to be redundant, reactive rather than proactive, and it typically enjoys killing flies with sledge hammers.  Without a doubt, there are certain needs in our country and there are necessary prescriptions for those certain needs that the government is uniquely and best situated to perform.  And if our government can manage to focus its resources on a well-defined and necessary purpose; it can perform its function in a reasonable reliable fashion.  But the plain and simple fact is that our government has no business getting involved in a lot of these principled discussions.

If our nation is going to remain true to the ideals of our founders and if we are going to continue our role as the light of liberty and freedom on this planet, then we are going to have to agree to the limits of our government’s abilities.  The government must protect our nation.  The government must provide a mechanism to address those specific needs that they alone are able to address.  Beyond that, the government must pursue a path of creating a level playing field for all citizens; a playing field that features equal dignity, respect, opportunity, and accountability for all.  The ultimate answer and salve to the excessive political certitude that infects our democracy does not lie with the politicians that run our government; even though they may think otherwise.  The strength and future of our nation is in the hands of the individuals that comprise our rural areas, our towns, and our cities.  Let the people decide the proper role of tolerance in our society; do not substitute therein the wisdom of Congress.  If we could better apply this practice, I believe what would be discovered is that an overwhelming majority of our populace are basically good, principled individuals who are willing to be tolerant of others as long as they receive a commensurate degree of tolerance.

Meaningful tolerance must be multi-dimensional.  It cannot be tolerance for me, but not for thee. Tolerance must be principled, and yet reasonable.  It cannot be one group intrusively shoving social practices into the private lives of those who disagree with them…simply for the sake of tolerance.  It cannot be unreasonable restrictions on the lifestyles of some simply because they do not conform to the ideals of others.  At some point, even if our disagreements are locked into principled foundations, we must understand that the ultimate judgment for each of us lies not with our neighbors or our government; yea, not even our courts.  It lies with the Lord; and that judgment will be fair, focused, and unrelenting.  Our government needs to provide each of us the opportunity to live a decent life while demonstrating an appropriate tolerance for others…and leave the worries about that final judgment to the man above.