The Clouded Lens of Partisanship 559.3
If a person asserted a Constitutional right to prevent the government from doing something the President or the Congress wanted to do, would you call him or her a conservative or a liberal? Would you support or oppose the position?
In today’s blindly partisan world, the answer would seem to depend on what right the person was asserting and whether you sympathize with the claim.
Thus, if someone opposes laws allowing gay marriages or abortions or restricting gun ownership, you’re likely to label her a conservative. If you have conservative leanings, you’d probably support her.
On the other hand, if the claim opposes attempts to limit free speech, supports laws providing free medical care, or prohibits torture, the person waving the Constitutional flag would likely be called a liberal. If you agree with him, you’re likely to approve his use of the Constitution.
My point is, many people only see the world through the clouded lenses of their political and social ideologies. They subordinate principles to partisanship and create a world where those who agree with them are inherently smart and good and those who don’t are stupid and evil.
Partisanship often leads to prejudice, precluding the fair evaluation of new facts. It also leads to self-righteousness and intolerance. The problem is not with deeply held convictions, it’s that too many people think that the more intensely they believe something, the more likely it is that they’re right.
Ranting and name-calling by both the left and right do a disservice to our country. They promote picking sides rather than analyzing issues.
The social positions of people of character are governed by reflective reasoning, not reflexive responses; by logic, not loyalty; and by consistency with enduring principles, not political parties.
This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
What do you think of this commentary?
Subscribe
Comments
It is VERY INTRIGUING to note that when discussing a LIBERAL, you choose to use "SHE" and when discussing a CONSERVATIVE, you, with deliberation, choose the "MALE" gender.
I might also say YOU are not ALONE in so doing.
Posted by: craw146 | March 27, 2008 1:51 PM
Talk about clouded lenses! craw146 got it completely backwards. Your reference to conservatives contained the feminine pronoun, while the liberal reference was male. I think we are often so blinded by our own preconceived prejudices that even when it's clearly spelled out for us, we still don't see. Thanks, Michael, for attempting to open our eyes!
Posted by: gmom | March 28, 2008 12:22 PM
Michael,
Your commentary on the clouded lens of partisanship reminded me of my old fraternity's Creed, which was written a few years after the Civil War. As a fraternity pledge, I didn't fully appreciate the value of having to learn the Creed well enough to complete its recitation before the burning match in my hand reached my thumb and index finger (while standing on a chair in the dining hall -- oh, the good old days!). But now I'm thankful that the Creed was "burned into" my psyche:
"To bind men together in a brotherhood based upon eternal and immutable principles, with a bond as strong as right itself and as lasting as humanity; to know no north, no south, no east, no west, but to know man as man; to teach not politics but morals; to foster not partisanship but the recognition of true merit wherever found; to know no narrower limits to work together for the elevation of man than the outlines of the world."
As an 18-year-old kid, at the mercy of only slightly more "mature" upper-classmen, I just wanted to get through the time-honored tradition/ordeal. But today at age 60 I find the words of the old Creed beautiful and true -- difficult, even, to say without emotion.
Let us recognize that real merit, wherever found, deserves our allegiance and that partisanship, however packaged or justified, never fails to make us smaller for having engaged in it.
Posted by: Charles E. Cole | April 3, 2008 4:21 PM
I think you have miscategorized the current Constitution. There are no such things as "laws allowing gay marriages or abortion." There are only laws that attempt to restrict others' freedoms to practice religion and control over their own bodies.
Now you might argue that the majority has the right to enact laws that restrict individual freedoms, but I fear at some point we will need to change the pledge of allegience. "Liberty and justice" will be only for the majority.
P.S. Who supports torture?
Posted by: Russell Kicklighter | September 12, 2008 9:18 PM
Did you ever notice that all of the people who are for abortion have already been born?
If you want the facts regarding Roe v Wade, I suggest you cantact Ms. Norma McCorvey (Roe) directly. She will tell you that Roe v Wade was based on a lie (her words) and that it is her life's work to have it overturned (again her words).
Posted by: Jeff Dunster | September 18, 2008 7:41 PM
Did you ever notice that all of the people who are against abortion have already been born? Not really the best argument. And people who are pro-choice are not necessarily pro-abortion. And people who call themselves pro-life are often for the death penalty and for war. Things to think about.
Posted by: Kathy Dorce | September 19, 2008 2:27 PM