Routes

I live in a small city on the west bank of a river. To the north and east lies a city on the opposite bank of the river. To drive between the two cities, you face the question of crossing a bridge right away, and making most of the trip on the opposite side of the river, or driving along your starting side of the river and crossing a bridge close to your destination. Both routes will get you to the same destination, and both routes have their adherents, some who feel very passionately that THEIR route is "right" and the other route is "wrong". There is a third choice, crossing a bridge midway between the two cities, and making a significant part of the trip in both sides of the river, but that route is rarely used, probably because it is the least direct and most difficult.

People make the choice based on a multitude of different criteria, including speed, scenery, familiarity, weather, and the specifics of the exact starting and ending locations. Personally, I do not believe that either route is "right" or "wrong", though I generally choose the route that is most familiar to me.

Much of life, and many of our disagreements, involve debates similar to driving between these two cities. Either route will get us to the same place, but we may choose differently based on our priorities and our familiarities. This is one of those areas in which some are loathe to face the truth that there is no "best" route, since determining the best route would require first determining the criteria to use to decide the best route. To some, certain criteria are obvious; to others, different criteria are equally obvious. In the end, the least effective route is a compromise between the two, if a compromise can be found at all. Sadly, this is often the route we are forced to take, based upon the need for compromise.

We are taught since childhood to embrace compromise, that compromise is a good and noble thing. Sometimes it is, but other times it is ineffective or impossible. There is also the issue of what I call false compromise -- something that sounds like a compromise, but is not.

A true example: A teenage girl was dating an older boy who lived some distance away. The girl asked her parents if she could stay overnight at her boyfriend's house every weekend, to save on travel. The parents told her they did not approve of her spending the night at her boyfriend's house. The daughter offered a compromise: She would stay overnight at her boyfriend's house every OTHER weekend. This certainly SOUNDS like a compromise midway between the two positions, but in fact it is mostly the daughter's "route," with barely a nod toward the parents' "route."

We are sometimes offered such "false compromises" -- ideas that are presented as "compromises" but actually would require us to give up all of our priorities and embrace someone else's -- and then find ourselves appearing to be unreasonable if we reject the "compromise." We must not be mindlessly subjugated to the idea of compromise, especially since even true and fair compromises may be totally ineffective.

Sometimes the only effective way to reach a goal is consistency. When the bridge midway between the two cities is closed, you must choose to travel on the west side or the east side of the river. Either route will get you to your destination, and neither is necessarily better, but you have to choose one or the other. Once you arrive at your destination, you can re-open the debate, and perhaps take the other route on the return trip.

Unfortunately, many areas of life, including our political system, defy consistency. In a polarized, two-party system, we are almost guaranteed to swing back and forth between different philosophies. Since it is doubtful that either party is always "right", this lack of consistency has certain merit. At the same time, we will never know if certain ideas WOULD have succeeded, or been proven correct, if only given sufficient time -- if we, as a nation, had followed them consistently. In politics, the problem is compounded by the fact that we do not necessarily share even the same goals, though both sides believe the goals are obvious.

A further problem is our reluctance to accept the fact that sometimes there is no "best" route, or at least that determining the "best" route is impossible under the circumstances -- that the truth is complicated. We want to KNOW which route is best, and we also want affirmation of the idea that OUR route is best. Sometimes we just have to accept the ambiguity -- the idea that more than one route may be okay, but that in order to GET anywhere, we will have to choose ONE of them.

Truth is complicated.

Politics

There is one -- and only one -- central political issue/question, though it can be stated in any number of different ways. Basically, the key question is "What do the people want from their government?" or "What is the proper role of government in our lives?" or "What is the purpose of government?" That's it. Sadly and curiously, this question rarely gets asked, let alone debated.

There are sub-questions about the organization of government, and who does what, and then an infinite number of questions regarding specifics and details, but they are all off-shoots of the central issue. My fear is that many people do not ask the central question because the answers seem so obvious. The government exists to do what THEY believe it should do, nothing more, nothing less, and anyone who believes otherwise is guilty of wrong thinking, or of not thinking at all.

I freely admit that there may be profound differences between MY views on government and YOUR views on government. First and foremost, I want government to offer a certain degree of protection from forces that would do me wrong, while allowing me a great deal of freedom to go about my daily life. This includes, but is not limited to, protecting me from foreign armies, rabid animals, asteroids, and my neighbors. I also want government to ensure a certain degree of fairness in my dealings with other humans, and an honoring of agreements. At the same time, I realize the government CANNOT protect me from everything, or ensure fairness in all dealings, at least not within the framework of freedom that I desire. In this one paragraph, I have laid the groundwork for a lifetime of debates and compromises, JUST regarding these fairly straightforward goals.

I would like to point out that I have profound doubts regarding the role of government in things like schools (I am not sure the government should be involved in schooling) or highways (I am not sure the government should be involved in road-building or in most other civil engineering projects). PLEASE note that I am NOT saying the government should NOT be involved in these things. I am merely expressing my own uncertainty.

The things we DO debate in politics are often the specifics regarding the best way to accomplish our common, universally-accepted goals, which are merely implied, and are neither common nor universally-accepted. Perhaps if we acknowledged this, we could get down to substantive debate over our real and reasonable differences.

Reasonable

I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge of the law is murky at best, but I believe the law often deals with the concept of "reasonable". There are concepts of "reasonable doubt" and "what a reasonable person would do".

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "reasonable" as:
1 a : being in accordance with reason {a reasonable theory}
b : not extreme or excessive {reasonable requests}
c : moderate, fair {a reasonable chance} {a reasonable price}
d : inexpensive
2 a : having the faculty of reason
b : possessing sound judgment {a reasonable man}

Unfortunately, in common usage the idea of what is "reasonable" is open for interpretation and sometimes highly debatable. For me, there is a close relationship between the concepts of "reasonable" and "debatable". It is reasonable to believe something that is debatable, whether or not it is absolutely true. The complicating problem lies in the issue of what is considered "debatable" (which most dictionaries define with phrases like "open to dispute" and "capable of being debated"). I doubt that there is ANYTHING that SOMEONE does not consider to be open for debate.

So the problem becomes deciding what a reasonable person considers to be debatable. Rather than just a confusing set of words, I believe this is a key problem for our society today. We must attempt to distinguish which ideas are reasonable and debatable, and label these ideas differently from those ideas that are totally unworthy of consideration -- keeping in mind that even ideas that first sound outrageous are sometimes worthy of careful consideration. This determination should be separated from determination of "right" and "wrong", or ideas with which we agree or disagree.

This entire discussion is related to the idea that much of what we believe is inherently correct is based on our own values rather than any inherent "correctness". Ideas that go completely against our values are not necessarily wrong, though it is easy to quickly label them as unreasonable. It is difficult to come up with examples that are not polarizing, emotion-charged, and dangerous, but I will use a fairly obscure topic. The late backpacking "guru", Collin Fletcher, proposed that a way to deal with overcrowding in our "wilderness" areas and national parks would be to make trails less accessible -- such as having the actual beginning of the trail some distance from any road or parking lot, to be reached only by pushing through the trail-less brush. This idea is opposed by those who wish to make these same trails more accessible to everyone, including those with physical disabilities. Still, I would label this idea as "reasonable" and "debatable" rather than "absurd". This is NOT to say it is a GOOD idea, or that I AGREE with it. My POINT is that the idea is not so totally wrong as to be unworthy of discussion.

This is especially a problem in politics, where people are quick to label any idea that they oppose as "absurd" or "ridiculous" or "irrational" (I could come up with more terms but I will stop). I believe we would all be better off if we were capable of acknowledging certain ideas to be reasonable or debatable, even when we ourselves deeply opposed those ideas. As a society, we need to acknowledge the difference between reasonable and totally wrong ideas -- or especially ideas that are contrary to established facts -- even when we disagree.

When we fail to distinguish between those ideas that are clearly, indisputably wrong, and those ideas with which we merely disagree, we make true communication impossible, and resolving our differences much more difficult. I find it interesting to note that even if a person were completely infallible, they would STILL need to be able to make this distinction if they wished to resolve differences with others. When dealing with other people with other beliefs, it is sometimes important to determine whether an idea is worth considering, rather than whether is it right or wrong.

I acknowledge that the question of what is "reasonable" will always remain open for debate, and especially that some people will take great offense at ideas and beliefs others consider to be "reasonable". I suppose that I am arguing that we would be better off as a society if we would all broaden our standards a bit as to what we consider "reasonable". I am NOT asking for any revision in what we consider "right" or "wrong" -- just what we consider "reasonable".

Truth is complicated.

Ridicule

Ridicule is the "nuclear weapon" of civilized debate. Used effectively, ridicule can destroy almost any position or statement, regardless of the truth, logic, or correctness of the position or statement, or the truth, logic, or correctness of the ridicule. Ridicule is generally blind to attributes like truth. Due to its overwhelming destructive power, ridicule is an oft-used weapon (unlike conventional nuclear weapons).

I suspect that those observing the use of ridicule in a debate tend to believe that if a position can be destroyed by ridicule, it had some weakness or flaw to begin with. I strongly disagree. I believe that the damage done to a position is simply a reflection of the skill of the ridiculer, unrelated to the strength or weakness of the position. Furthermore, I believe that at least some ridiculers are aware of this, knowing that if they use ridicule effectively they can make even undeniable facts appear to be ridiculous.

I would hope that, as a society, we would prefer our debates to be decided on the true merits of the opposing positions, rather than on the basis of "All is fair in love and war." This does not seem to be the case.

I must hasten to acknowledge that sometimes positions simply ARE ridiculous, and it is hard NOT to ridicule them. I should also point out that I am a big fan of humor, and believe our society would be better off if we tolerated more joking about sensitive topics -- but I actually see THAT as an almost-unrelated issue.

Truth is complicated.

Values

Each of us has a probably-unique set of values. It is difficult and complicated to even define the concept of "values". Some use the term almost interchangeably with "morals", whereas for me it is more closely related to "priorities". An important part of my definition of "values" is that values are the criteria that each of us uses to distinguish "right" from "wrong". In trying to figure out how to define "values" I find that the World Wide Web contains many lists of values, often reduced to single words, such as "honesty" and "punctuality" and even "friendliness".

I cannot easily define "values", and I am certain that my internal definition does not match your internal definition, any more than my internal values match your internal values. Even if we agree that something like "friendliness" is a good thing, then there is the matter of defining "friendliness". I have a relative who I routinely accuse of gravitating toward "nosey busybodies" -- but I realize that the behavior that I define as being a "nosey busybody" could also be defined as being "friendly".

"Honesty" and "punctuality" suffer the same problems with variability in our definitions. We may embrace the value of honesty as a good thing, yet most of us place limits on our honesty, such as in situations in which we are trying to spare someone from hurt feelings (possibly because we sometimes place a higher priority on "kindness" than on "honesty"). The concept of "punctuality" varies widely between situations and cultures. In some situations and cultures, it is rude to be even a minute late, while in others it is rude to be a minute early.

At least in recent decades, Americans tend to frown on public nudity, and even pass laws against it. Other cultures do not necessarily view nudity as such a problem. In fact, there may be nothing intrinsically "wrong" about public nudity except that it violates long-held values -- though I am sure there are some who would argue that public nudity is "clearly, obviously" wrong, for a wide variety of reasons.

Perhaps the very best example of what I am trying to discuss is the placement of toilet paper on a bathroom roller. Some people do not care or notice whether the toilet paper comes over the top of the roll, or out from the bottom. For others, it is a major issue, and THEIR way is clearly "right". Some people acknowledge that their choice is simply from the way it was done at home as they were growing up, while others insist there is a logical reason why their way is preferable.

YOU may not see the position of toilet paper on the roller as an example of differing "values". If not, it is probably due to the fact that your definition of "values" is different than mine -- perhaps closer to the dictionary definition -- or that your values are different than mine.

Truth is complicated.