The Clouded Lens of Partisanship 629.1
If a person asserted a Constitutional right to prevent the government from doing something the President or 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 someone opposes attempts to limit free speech, supports laws providing free medical care, or prohibits torture, the person would likely be called a liberal. If you agree with him, you’d 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 isn’t 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.


Comments
I read today with great respect an article in our local newspaper (Knoxville News Sentinel, Knoxville, TN) about why Senator Lamar Alexander voted for the appointment of Judge Sotomayor. His reasoning, which impressed me so much, was identical to this commentary. How wonderful to know we have some in Congress who vote according to principles and not partisanship.
Posted by: Lucille | July 31, 2009 7:25 AM
This is exactly what I have been trying to tell people in my political discussion group for years!!!! Well done.
Posted by: Betty | July 31, 2009 8:03 AM
Well said, sir!
I wholeheartedly agree. "Character Counts." This is why I subscribe to your newsletters.
"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."
I had to emphasize those 3 powerful words: "PEOPLE OF CHARACTER."
This short article, and those three words, summarize the massive problems we are dealing with in our country.
Character, as per your definition, is not being seen in our government as a whole. (Which is why I am an Independent.)
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A majority of our government has, indeed, placed personal and party power over the needs and desires of the people and has marketed it with lies, propaganda and doublespeak while ignoring the public outcry against upcoming legislation. People are beginning to grasp the concept of what a trillion dollars is and the concept of "generational theft."
Understand that I am not speaking of a particular party because this has been evident in both parties for over a century except for one exceptional man with exceptional character.
It is sad that America is being steered headlong into a Marxist state. They even have an obvious game plan built on these commonly read examples:
Orwell's 1984, Hitler's Mein Kampf, Huxley's Brave New World, the five-year plans for the national economy of the USSR and this phrase from FDR's Second Bill of Rights proposal: "We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."
In this last sentence we see our government proceeding rapidly toward "People who are hungry and out of a job..."
And it is obvious to all who are paying attention that this is exactly what has been happening since Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and has accelerated to the point where Congress is passing legislation that has not even been read, but understand that inherent in each bill is more federal government power. And that's all that matters. Details are insignificant because it is understood that the end result is more non-specific, far-reaching government power.
In his classic novel "Brave New World," English writer Aldous Huxley wrote of a future where human beings are manipulated, abused and even killed for the perceived good of society. Huxley envisioned a future where human life is cheapened and easily disposed of for the benefit of a controlling elite. Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis referred to such an elite as men without chests. Indeed, in such a brave new world humanity itself is redefined to allow for the elimination of those deemed inferior. Is Huxley's ghoulish nightmare about to descend upon America?
Will we lose control over our destiny to an elite comprised of men without chests? Thomas Glessner writes of the gradual dehumanization of human beings that has invaded American culture and has accelerated at a frightening pace since the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. The subsequent dehumanization of unborn human beings and the emergence of abortion on demand have opened the door to a culture where humanity is redefined and those deemed of insignificant value are eliminated.
This amounts to a summary of the proposed government healthcare plan. If you're too sick, too old, inconveniently conceived, physically or mentally handicapped, you will be put down or allowed to die a slow, lingering death without medical care. Your value as a person will be determined by a bureaucrat who doesn't even know you.
Never should legislation be passed without the approval of the people. That means we get to read it, analyze it, and give our approval or not to our representatives to vote as we wish according to our reflective reasoning, logic, and consistent application of enduring principles derived not from the state but "by Nature and Nature's God." (Thank you, Thomas Jefferson.)
If you choose not to publish this, that's fine. It may instigate a firestorm of dissent among your readers who are in favor of having a massive bureaucracy in charge of every aspect of their life.
In Texas, we prefer to be free. Free to succeed, free to fail, free to live, free to die. We still remember and revere the Alamo, San Jacinto, Goliad, The Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Normandy, Korea, Saigon, the Hanoi Hilton, Martin Luther King, Jr's peaceful, logical and well-reasoned plea for equality, the USS Cole, and 9/11.
We believe the government is accountable to "we the People" rather than people accountable to government. And we believe every human life has inherent value, that there is nothing more important than an ordinary person.
Things are not looking good for character, Mr. Josephson. I deeply appreciate your writings and hope the next generation will rediscover that in all matters, character, not power or money, counts.
Posted by: John | July 31, 2009 11:10 AM
Wellllllll. The article by Josephson was truly remarkable, and in reality should be heeded and implemented by every one of us. If only more people would realize that "I" am the one who is right and that my perspectives are not clouded by my belief systems and my personal values. Then I could tell others the way it is!!!!!
The response written by John just kind of relates the "truths" in very few words. I do believe there are some basic truths that most of us could agree upon. IFFFFFFF - we just sat down and defined a mutually agreed upon objective. The typical problem, of course, is that "my" cause can become so important that I lie, cheat, manipulate, etc. in order to achieve my agenda.
Thanks for the thoughts - to both Michael and John.
Posted by: Ronn Langford | August 4, 2009 1:03 PM