Aside from my general belief that the availability of blogging, exercise, and workplace competition (and, let's be honest, beer) in our gloriously free economy provide the diversions needed to keep the Schiavo disagreements from turning into violence, I think there's another hint of goodness that may emerge from this otherwise sad episode. There have been all sorts of unlikely partnerships and divisions that have arisen as people on different sides of the politico-theological divide assume their positions.
Thomas Sowell might be mostly right in his reduction of the vast array of contentions between the red fish and blue fish into a very few reflections of divergent philosophical axioms. But he's not completely right. Every now and then, someone will surprise themselves by discovering a deeply held belief at odds with the party platform. More blessedly, every now and then, we'll find ourselves in agreement with some fellow with whom we disagree vehemently on just about everything.
This isn't foolproof, of course, but there's just the chance then that we begin to recognize that our political opponents are motivated by something other than the basest of evils. If we're absolutely fortunate, we might even see them as people. One never knows.
- Moishe Potemkin
There are times in my life when I envy the absolute confidence that so many people exhibit when they pontificate on questions such as the Schiavo issue. And then there are times that the simple-mindedness underlying this confidence absolutely repels me.
I swore for a while that I wouldn't actually formulate an opinion. I don't know the medical issues, I don't know the law, and I don't pretend to be able to read the minds of either Michael Schiavo or the Schindlers.
But there's one component of this conundrum about which I have discovered that I actually have taken a side. I am strenuously opposed to the concept that moral laws should over-ride the actual legal processes of this country. This, not too put too fine a point on it, is anarchy.
American laws - including those used to determine the hierarchy empowered to make treatment decisions for the disabled - are debated and passed by representatives elected by people. If one has an argument to make about these or any other priorities, one can make them. If one believes oneself to be the mouthpiece of a God whose opinions, according to this interpretation, should supersede democratic rule, one is free to make the argument defending these interpretations.
But remember, whatever the principles, and no matter how smug the confidence engendered by these principles, there are millions of people out there, equally sincere, equally smug, who disagree. And if history is any guide at all, when the argument turns to competing smugnesses, the victory goes to the most violent.
- Moishe Potemkin
Hic est another dopey posting representing my own conflation of politics, theology, and the other bugs in my noodle, to use the clinical psychological terminology.
Ever since we've run out of colours and substances with which to denote the myriad democratic "Revolutions" taking place in the Ukraine, Lebanon, Krygyzstan (which may or may not be a real country, but I do respect the name, and its scarcity of vowels), Palestine, Egypt, et cetera, there have been carefully phrased columns penned by the miniscule percentage of grown-up supporters of the Cowboy Docrine advocating something less than full-throated "I told you so"-ing of our friends on the left.
I agree with the sentiment, but not for the reasons usually offered. Eleven times out of ten, the caution is advised because the long, hard slog is a long, hard slog, and "many things could still go wrong." That's all true, and besides, it covers our collective hmm-mmm's from the New York Times the next time a bunch of schoolchildren are blown up by another fervent Mohammedan.
Larger point: Arrogance is unwarranted here not because we don't know yet how this whole thing will play out, but because we shouldn't necessarily take credit for being right in the first place. We all have our own outlooks, shaped by goodness-knows-what experiences and educations that have been inflicted upon us from Day 1. Folks that disagreed with us didn't do so out of a fervent wish that Saddam Hussein continue his raping and pillaging uninterrupted, but because their understanding of how people "work" led to the conclusion that destabilizing the Middle East was a bad idea.
I disagreed, of course, and anyone with a modicum of technological talent (i.e. not me) could go to older posts and see that first-hand. But do I have penetrating insight into Islamic culture? More precisely, did I have a more accurate estimate of the percentage of Iraqis that would feel liberated, and the percentage that would view the U.S. invasion as a permanent blot of humiliation? No sir, I did not, and neither did you. (Only guy that comes close is Bernard Lewis, and he's eight gazillion years old. Even Karen Armstrong got this wrong.)
What's my point? Always a good question, but in this case, the issue is that the subjectivity that typically underlies our strongest core beliefs is still subjective, and that point shouldn't be forgotten. Not because of the threat of political payback, or becuase we might be wrong in the future, but because our being right in the past was more a product of luck than genius.
I'll look this over in the morning to see if it makes any sense. Until then, I remain, your ever humble servant,
- Moishe Potemkin
P.S. JosiahQ, I'm not ignoring your questions, but the original thread isn't accepting any more comments, and last time I tried, I blew up my computer.
A common objection to recent developments in Israel is that Mahmoud Abbas is a holocaust-denying Arafat-crony (all the best criticisms are hyphenated) who has never denounced suicide bombings, and is therefore not to be trusted. I think these are reasonable concerns - if the question is whether he's a nice fella. I don't know, myself, but for purposes of the discussion, I'm willing to stipulate that he's horrendous.
The point is, though, that societies are fluid things, and they're difficult to control, particularly when there's an underlying emphasis on liberty. (Liberty is frequently confused with security, or maintaining a high quality of life. These each have their advantages, but they're not identical.)
To the extent that we've got historical evidence, citizens of liberal (I refuse to insult my readers by emphasizing the lower-case l. Assuming I have readers, that is. A tad presumptuous, based on the sitemeter, but hope springs eternal. If you know Pejman, tell him I'm here.) societies with guaranteed fundamental rights typically spend their time and channel their innate aggression in non-violent ways. I think the next phase of the Cowboy Doctrine (currently on evidence in Syria, Iraq, a bunch on -stans, and, one hopes, Greater Persia as well) will basically continue to wrest control of these countries from their respective tyrants, and put in place mechanics designed to lead, in each case, to liberal society.
Dr. Abbas may have only the most nefarious plans for the sons of Isaac. If I read the situation correctly, though, that shouldn't matter, even if it's true. What he's being forced to do is to liberate his society. If this sociological experiment is successful, then the almost automatic redirection of aggressive impulses into more productive endeavours ensues. In addition to ultimately adding to the number of people looking for a cure for cancer, this implies a lessening of the influence of leaders with more malignant intentions.
Or, in a briefer sense, peace.
I'm not suggesting that this process will definitely work. (It seems to have cooled down the flames between England and France, which burned fairly brightly over the years.) My point is only to demonstrate why I think certain objections are less relevant than they appear.
- Moishe Potemkin