 |
| David Brooks |
By the standards Mr. Brooks lays out in his column, I am most definitely a "moderate." I, like Mr. Brooks, "do not see politics as warfare." I agree that "there is no one and correct answer to the big political questions." I also agree that, "at most, government can create a platform upon which the beautiful things in life can flourish."
Quite syncretistically, or so I think, I often can "hold two or more opposing ideas together in [my] mind at the same time." I prefer "steady incremental reform to sudden revolutionary change." I don't believe in suppressing speakers of the hard truth in the name of maintaining ideological purity. I never "prioritize one identity, one narrative and one comforting distortion." I recognize the limits of (hyper-)partisan debate. And I hope I'm humble enough to admit that "the more the moderate grapples with reality the more she understands how much is beyond our understanding."
So I think this column, like so many written by Mr. Brooks, ought to be taken to heart by the American body politic.
And yet ... I'd like to ask Mr. Brooks to add something like the following:
There are, however, certain absolutes that ought to constrain political discourse. We cannot, for instance, relativize the truth of the equality of all of humankind's races in seeking political amity, and the same is true today of gender equality and sexual equality. Such principles have become enshrined in the American value system over the course of time. Some of these absolutes, such as gay rights and transgender rights, have entered the pantheon of American certainties only quite recently, but this does not mean that any of them ought to be be negotiated away in a search for "steady incremental reform." Remember: President Obama echoed Martin Luther King in saying,“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Once it has achieved the fruits of so bending, I believe we must never bend it back simply to be able to say we are seeking a spirit of political "moderation."
What say you to that, Mr. Brooks?
2 comments:
I also read his column today and I was sort of left in a daze by it.
In my opinion, I believe the current political climate is one where moderation is counter-productive the nations advancement.
When I see a party brazenly breaking political norms, stealing a SCOTUS appointment, working to supress the vote, drawing racially discriminatory and heavily favored congressional districts, and supporting a President whos values seem to run counter to what this Nation has stood for, I believe moderation would lead to our doom.
I personally no longer believe our two major political parties are even close to one another as far as moral standards and respect for this countries institutions go, therefor, I can't afford to be a moderate voice, nor do I see any common ground on a majority of issues facing our nation.
Common ground does not just happen. It requires us on both sides to strive to be "moderate," in the sense that Mr. Brooks uses. I know it seems counterintuitive not to fight, but it's having both sides fighting rather than compromising that got Trump elected ...
Post a Comment