What Democracies Should Do...And What They Really Do
Democratic elections - those that decide by popular vote who will be in power or whether a particular referendum will be adopted - aren't always good at resolving differences.
With our national election behind us, and the politicians call for reconciliation and cooperation soon to fade into the contentiousness we've all grown used to, I'm getting some feedback from friends and colleagues. The Obama crowd feels relieved that the socialist-liberal agenda won't be slowed down by a Republican Senate or President. The Romney crowd slips into a kind of funk, having thought a moderate, albeit handsome, Republican would have somehow slowed, even stopped the decline of Western civilization.
Indeed, some have seen the results of the recent election as demonstrating a great "divide" in the country. But lest we think that differing views are somehow unique to our generation, please consider the following. It's an attempt to appeal to our reason and intelligence to sort out our differences.
In fact, democratic governments have always faced the common problem of how to sort out opposing views. One side inevitably consists a majority, one a minority. So here's a solution proposed by Henry Roberts. He's the author of Roberts Rules of Order.
Isn't this a wonderful suggestion? Now, having recognized Roberts as a man of reason and one who understands the value of the virtue of temperance, is that the sort of thing we typically see going on in democracies? I don't know about you, but, sadly, it's not what I see.
For example, I see a lot of arguments put forth based on opinion polls. A clear example would be the debate over abortion. While you sometimes hear someone make the case for whether abortion is good or evil, you more likely hear one side or the other cite some poll. For example, many opponents of abortion cite polls showing that a majority of Americans believe that abortion is evil and should not be legal - at least most forms of what are today legal abortion procedures. When I hear these arguments, I wonder what the majority view has to do with whether abortion is good or evil. If it's evil, it doesn't really matter whether a majority thinks it should be legal, does it?
Ah, that's right. I'm thinking that there's such a thing as objective good and objective evil. And, as we recently saw, many - if not most - Americans apparently believe in relativism, the belief that there is not objective good and evil.
The problem with this recent shift from a belief in objective good and evil to a belief in relativism is that it precludes Robert's argument. Why would you sit still and listen to someone's reasoned arguments if you don't believe in objective good and evil or objective right and wrong? If you think that what's good is what's good "for you" (as we recently pointed out), or if you think that what's right is what's right "for you," then there's no place for reasonable arguments.
What there is a place for is what we now have - a repetition of the results of various polls. If we believe in relativism, then all we really care about is that more people think as we do, so we can get our way. We don't really care about right and wrong, good and evil.
I hope you understand this and I hope you see how relativism has thrown good and evil - along with right and wrong - under the bus, so to speak. We're now stuck with pollsters, and frequently political hucksters bombarding us with opinions they claim are held by some majority of people. As a result, when you re-read Mr. Robert's comments, you'll see that we are living in a world that simply won't allow his dispassionate, reasoned exchange to take place.
Of course, this does make democracy problematic, doesn't it? Because now democracy is simply an open forum for the majority to shout down the minority so the majority gets its way.
We might debate the merits of democracy, but can you at least see what's happened to us as a result of our embrace of relativism? (Click HERE if you're not sure.)
With our national election behind us, and the politicians call for reconciliation and cooperation soon to fade into the contentiousness we've all grown used to, I'm getting some feedback from friends and colleagues. The Obama crowd feels relieved that the socialist-liberal agenda won't be slowed down by a Republican Senate or President. The Romney crowd slips into a kind of funk, having thought a moderate, albeit handsome, Republican would have somehow slowed, even stopped the decline of Western civilization.
Indeed, some have seen the results of the recent election as demonstrating a great "divide" in the country. But lest we think that differing views are somehow unique to our generation, please consider the following. It's an attempt to appeal to our reason and intelligence to sort out our differences.
In fact, democratic governments have always faced the common problem of how to sort out opposing views. One side inevitably consists a majority, one a minority. So here's a solution proposed by Henry Roberts. He's the author of Roberts Rules of Order.
Where there is radical difference of opinion in an organization, one side must yield. The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal.Notice how Roberts appeals to reason over emotion or power politics. He makes an appeal to us to focus on reason and the virtue of temperance. We should keep our minds open to the reasoned arguments of the opposition. As we listen, we should restrain our emotions (temperance) and make every effort to understand the arguments presented.
Isn't this a wonderful suggestion? Now, having recognized Roberts as a man of reason and one who understands the value of the virtue of temperance, is that the sort of thing we typically see going on in democracies? I don't know about you, but, sadly, it's not what I see.
For example, I see a lot of arguments put forth based on opinion polls. A clear example would be the debate over abortion. While you sometimes hear someone make the case for whether abortion is good or evil, you more likely hear one side or the other cite some poll. For example, many opponents of abortion cite polls showing that a majority of Americans believe that abortion is evil and should not be legal - at least most forms of what are today legal abortion procedures. When I hear these arguments, I wonder what the majority view has to do with whether abortion is good or evil. If it's evil, it doesn't really matter whether a majority thinks it should be legal, does it?
Ah, that's right. I'm thinking that there's such a thing as objective good and objective evil. And, as we recently saw, many - if not most - Americans apparently believe in relativism, the belief that there is not objective good and evil.
The problem with this recent shift from a belief in objective good and evil to a belief in relativism is that it precludes Robert's argument. Why would you sit still and listen to someone's reasoned arguments if you don't believe in objective good and evil or objective right and wrong? If you think that what's good is what's good "for you" (as we recently pointed out), or if you think that what's right is what's right "for you," then there's no place for reasonable arguments.
What there is a place for is what we now have - a repetition of the results of various polls. If we believe in relativism, then all we really care about is that more people think as we do, so we can get our way. We don't really care about right and wrong, good and evil.
I hope you understand this and I hope you see how relativism has thrown good and evil - along with right and wrong - under the bus, so to speak. We're now stuck with pollsters, and frequently political hucksters bombarding us with opinions they claim are held by some majority of people. As a result, when you re-read Mr. Robert's comments, you'll see that we are living in a world that simply won't allow his dispassionate, reasoned exchange to take place.
Of course, this does make democracy problematic, doesn't it? Because now democracy is simply an open forum for the majority to shout down the minority so the majority gets its way.
We might debate the merits of democracy, but can you at least see what's happened to us as a result of our embrace of relativism? (Click HERE if you're not sure.)
Comments