You
just need to chill out
Jeff
Overley
Have
you ever met someone with whom you agreed
on every single issue you both ever discussed?
I certainly haven't.
Yet
to glance at the editorial pages of any
newspaper, to listen to and watch cable
news or sometimes even to have a conversation,
one would think that my situation is quite
uncommon.
There
seem to be a number of people, devotees
of the Republican or Democratic parties,
who support and defend every action taken
by their group, while condemning and belittling
the opposing groups.
Rarely
do we hear the commentator who one week
endorses the actions of say, President Bush,
and the next week chastises or even scrutinizes
a presidential policy. It is, week in and
week out, the same rhetorical blitzkrieg.
One
side labels President Bush a bold leader,
the other a stammering nincompoop. The right
says liberals are sniveling whiners, the
left says conservatives are warmongers out
of touch with mainstream America. On and
on it goes, neither side ever giving an
inch, each of them happily divided.
It
would be an easy solution to say that these
people simply hold strong convictions, and
that it is natural and productive for them
to be divided as such to debate their respective
positions, with the spoils going to the
victors.
I
don't believe that it is at all a normal
human characteristic to bicker intransigently.
Rather, as the early 20th century writer
Simone Weil observed, this seems to be a
product the political party.
Weil
asks us to imagine a member of a political
party saying, "Whenever I examine any
political or social problem, I promise to
completely disregard the fact that I am
a member of a certain group and devote myself
solely to discovering the public good and
justice."
This
comment, Weil says, would be poorly received.
"His fellows ...would accuse him of
treason. The least hostile would say, "Why,
then, did you join a party?"
The
problem, Weil notes, may also be rooted
in the way education fails to stimulate
children. Students are taught to think in
for or against terms, rather than simply
to explain their feelings and insights as
a whole.
For
example, last semester a teacher assigned
a passage from Weil that included the following
statement: "[Students] are presented
with a sentence by a great author and are
asked: Do you agree or not? Develop your
arguments."
I
would have forgotten this remark if not
for the test this teacher gave us a few
weeks later. On it, she presented us with
a quote from Immanuel Kant, then asked --
and I quote -- "Do you agree or not?
Develop your arguments."
I
was quite astonished. Perhaps the teacher
didn't really put much stock in Weil's ideas;
nonetheless, it was enlightening.
I'll
issue a challenge then, to the current intractable
defenders of the left and the right. Next
time you sit down to write your column,
go on the air or talk with a colleague,
think of one matter on which you agree or
disagree with President Bush and actually
express that revelation.
You
can't think of anything? That's all right,
I'm surprised you're still even reading.
That's a good start.
Jeff
Overley is a journalism major at Cal State
Long Beach.
|
