I recently took part in a symposium on the condition of democracy in America. Panelists were asked what advice they would give the American people to improve the political culture in this country. I suggested a conscious effort to assume the sincerity and good intentions of people we fundamentally disagree with. I said this would be good for us as individuals; it's always beneficial to question our own infallibility. And it would be good for the country, as it would make necessary compromises easier.
Another thought-provoking post, Bill. It reminds me of this comment you made on a previous post, "Moralism in politics":
"Militants have often been the ones to topple the old regime, but they have rarely been good at building a replacement. The Sons of Liberty helped start the Revolutionary War, but Washington and Franklin had to fight and end it, and they and others had to write the Constitution to get the successor government on a solid footing. Brown prompted slaveholders to challenge the Union militarily, but Lincoln was the one who ended slavery. Malcolm X energized black protest in the 1960s, but Martin Luther King did more to end segregation. The militants often get better historical treatment, being more dramatic and sure of themselves, but the pragmatists are the ones who actually move history forward in a way that lasts."
Brown meant well, but he was far too overzealous in his desires even for his fellow abolitionists. Yet he also wasn't the outright villain he has been portrayed as in Hollywood movies, such as the outrageously inaccurate Warner Brothers film "Santa Fe Trail" (1940).
Thanks for the questioning attitude and the fences not barricades approach. I sometimes wonder about the role of morality in politics and government and glad you’re questioning your own stance. (I don’t have a suggestion, just more wondering to throw on the fire). For me this brings up the question: what’s the government’s job in a democracy? To structure and operate the machinery of society according to the majority’s goals and desires as expressed through voting? Given we don’t have a continuous, specific way to vote directly on important issues and instead, generally elect people who are under no obligation to do what they said they would, it seems to me the morality question is a sidestep or at least a philosophical question instead of a tactical one. I think it’s a useful question, don’t get me wrong, but in the US in particular, I fear the word morality is too closely informed by the predominant religion, which is too emotionally valenced a topic to even blush at. Instead might it be more useful to judge the performance of governance by how much it actually helps people versus divides them? Where’s our feedback loop in morality that tells us how well people are doing? I think there’s a lot of noise and not a lot of signal on that line, personally. /rant. Thanks for the platform to think about this.
Isn't there a risk that cooperation with, for example, a white supremacists on issues outside of race issues normalizes such attitude? After all, this isn't the same as cooperating on foreign policy across the aisle while still disagreeing on tax policy.
This was definitely a concern of my interlocutor. Opinions can differ on how important this question is. And the answers depend in part on one's role in politics. Voters can indulge their moral principles; presidents typically cannot--and should not. They represent all the people, good and bad. FDR deferred on civil rights in order to keep Southern Democrats on board for as much of the New Deal as they could stomach.
An aspect of this, as you imply, is that somewhere along the road from the 1960s we decided that our political responsibility extended to the personal, and that meant that a much larger part of our human existence became subject to judgment and condemnation or applause. People are complex, and most of them have *some* fairly unpopular opinion. If politics infuses all of human endeavor, it is very hard to see how losers of an election can ever see the winner as legitimate. They’ll find some basis for deciding he is evil, and that will be that.
Another thought-provoking post, Bill. It reminds me of this comment you made on a previous post, "Moralism in politics":
"Militants have often been the ones to topple the old regime, but they have rarely been good at building a replacement. The Sons of Liberty helped start the Revolutionary War, but Washington and Franklin had to fight and end it, and they and others had to write the Constitution to get the successor government on a solid footing. Brown prompted slaveholders to challenge the Union militarily, but Lincoln was the one who ended slavery. Malcolm X energized black protest in the 1960s, but Martin Luther King did more to end segregation. The militants often get better historical treatment, being more dramatic and sure of themselves, but the pragmatists are the ones who actually move history forward in a way that lasts."
https://open.substack.com/pub/hwbrands/p/moralism-in-politics?r=kgnhx&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=3057279
By the way your book The Zealot and the Emancipator: John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, and the Struggle for American Freedom was excellent!
Brown meant well, but he was far too overzealous in his desires even for his fellow abolitionists. Yet he also wasn't the outright villain he has been portrayed as in Hollywood movies, such as the outrageously inaccurate Warner Brothers film "Santa Fe Trail" (1940).
👏👏👏
Thanks for the questioning attitude and the fences not barricades approach. I sometimes wonder about the role of morality in politics and government and glad you’re questioning your own stance. (I don’t have a suggestion, just more wondering to throw on the fire). For me this brings up the question: what’s the government’s job in a democracy? To structure and operate the machinery of society according to the majority’s goals and desires as expressed through voting? Given we don’t have a continuous, specific way to vote directly on important issues and instead, generally elect people who are under no obligation to do what they said they would, it seems to me the morality question is a sidestep or at least a philosophical question instead of a tactical one. I think it’s a useful question, don’t get me wrong, but in the US in particular, I fear the word morality is too closely informed by the predominant religion, which is too emotionally valenced a topic to even blush at. Instead might it be more useful to judge the performance of governance by how much it actually helps people versus divides them? Where’s our feedback loop in morality that tells us how well people are doing? I think there’s a lot of noise and not a lot of signal on that line, personally. /rant. Thanks for the platform to think about this.
Isn't there a risk that cooperation with, for example, a white supremacists on issues outside of race issues normalizes such attitude? After all, this isn't the same as cooperating on foreign policy across the aisle while still disagreeing on tax policy.
This was definitely a concern of my interlocutor. Opinions can differ on how important this question is. And the answers depend in part on one's role in politics. Voters can indulge their moral principles; presidents typically cannot--and should not. They represent all the people, good and bad. FDR deferred on civil rights in order to keep Southern Democrats on board for as much of the New Deal as they could stomach.
An aspect of this, as you imply, is that somewhere along the road from the 1960s we decided that our political responsibility extended to the personal, and that meant that a much larger part of our human existence became subject to judgment and condemnation or applause. People are complex, and most of them have *some* fairly unpopular opinion. If politics infuses all of human endeavor, it is very hard to see how losers of an election can ever see the winner as legitimate. They’ll find some basis for deciding he is evil, and that will be that.