A brief reflection
Nov. 3rd, 2004 11:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
djonnDeadlines preclude offering more than a quick observation this morning, but some of what I'm reading finds me unwilling not to comment.
Unlike the conflicts in epic fantasy novels, US elections are not Epic Battles of Good Vs. Evil -- no matter how much some forces on both ends of the political spectrum may try to color them as such. (Really, Bush can't be an Evil Overlord®; if he were, the election wouldn't have been anywhere near this close, and we'd have long since found arsenals of WMDs in Iraq because he'd have had them planted there.) US politics and governance is not about either/or choices, and it is a bad rhetorical mistake to try to cast it as such.
US governance is about building consensus in the pursuit of shared goals. That's what produced the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- and it's one reason that the religious right has had so much trouble trying to promote its agenda, because the RR's basic philosophy of government is not essentially autocratic, not (small-d) democratic or (small-r) republican.
The most important thing that can be done to short-circuit the climate of divisiveness is to resist falling into the either/or rhetorical trap. We badly need better political rhetoric to build on, rhetoric that speaks to rebuilding communities and coalitions, to pursuing shared goals by creating compromise strategies, to embracing those with whom we differ, rather than labeling and compartmentalizing them. And we must respect differences of sincerely held opinion, rather than casting aside those who hold them.
Unlike the conflicts in epic fantasy novels, US elections are not Epic Battles of Good Vs. Evil -- no matter how much some forces on both ends of the political spectrum may try to color them as such. (Really, Bush can't be an Evil Overlord®; if he were, the election wouldn't have been anywhere near this close, and we'd have long since found arsenals of WMDs in Iraq because he'd have had them planted there.) US politics and governance is not about either/or choices, and it is a bad rhetorical mistake to try to cast it as such.
US governance is about building consensus in the pursuit of shared goals. That's what produced the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution -- and it's one reason that the religious right has had so much trouble trying to promote its agenda, because the RR's basic philosophy of government is not essentially autocratic, not (small-d) democratic or (small-r) republican.
The most important thing that can be done to short-circuit the climate of divisiveness is to resist falling into the either/or rhetorical trap. We badly need better political rhetoric to build on, rhetoric that speaks to rebuilding communities and coalitions, to pursuing shared goals by creating compromise strategies, to embracing those with whom we differ, rather than labeling and compartmentalizing them. And we must respect differences of sincerely held opinion, rather than casting aside those who hold them.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 11:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 02:12 pm (UTC)Perhaps not -- but there are many creeks and rivers and streams across the nation where bridges can be built, and not all those on their banks are entirely intractable. (Alternatively, if one sees the District of Columbia as an island, then perhaps the use of the analogy is to build a coalition which can engineer a bridge all the way across to the island as opposed to yelling across the water with a megaphone.)