Genius
From the editorial page of the Richmond Times-Dispatch April 8, 2005:
Genius
The late Daniel Boorstin's The Genius of American Politics remains one of the finest studies of the American experiment. It complements Democracy in America and The Federalist.
Boorstin holds that Americans are not a particularly ideological people and that their system discourages the rise of rigid parties. There have been exceptions to the rule, of course, but Americans have been far more likely to apply common sense to problems than schemes dictated by ideologies.
Conservatives long have prided themselves as the non-ideological party. Conservatism described a state of mind, a temperament, a perspective, a quality of the imagination. Conservatives honored tradition, while recognizing that society is not static. Although principles informed their policies, they rejected automatic answers to public problems. They professed skepticism of power for the sake of partisan power. And they understood the tragic sense of life among men and nations.
Recent years have seen a conundrum. On the one hand, an administration and a Congress identified as conservative have pushed items that would have shocked Tories of yesteryear (the No Child Left Behind Act, for instance); on the other hand, behavior on both sides of the aisle has grown more contentious, more partisan, more ideological. Howard Dean says he hates Republicans. Numerous Republicans return the compliment. The two parties seemingly have adopted the tactics of "take no prisoners!" Evidence of their duplicity is supplied by the transparently hypocritical positions Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives take on procedural questions ranging from gerrymandering to filibusters.
From time to time exasperated Congressmen propose retreats to restore civility. Freshmen legislators attend orientation sessions where they learn the ropes. Why not require all members -- veterans and newcomers -- to read Boorstin and to write term papers on his implications for contemporary debate? Conservatives in particular might want to ask if they are paying proper respect to the virtues that once explained America's political genius.
posted by Randy @ 4/08/2005 12:02:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
This is a very interesting editorial, indeed. While it focuses primarily on the Republican party, the author could have easily written something similar about today’s Democrats. Both parties have strayed far a-field from their founding principles. And, I would wholeheartedly agree that the nature of political debate in this country has deteriorated into an overly contentious, partisan-for-partisan’s sake, free-for-all, where the careful and intellectual consideration of issues is replaced by blind, stubborn allegiance to the party line.
I do take exception, however, with the use of “ideology” in terms of partisan infighting. To me, being a political idealist means having hope, sometimes in the face of overwhelming odds, that we can transcend the partisan back-stabbing and live up to the grand tenets that our founding fathers laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. For me, being an idealist is getting goose bumps when I hear “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union” and “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” and actually believing that these aren’t just words, but something that is possible, that a true representative democracy, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” can and will be realized.
I would also contend that Americans are an ideological people, contrary to Mr. Boorstin’s assertion. Our country was founded by a group of political idealists, and I would counter that every great advance in our political history has been fostered by idealists, like Lincoln or Roosevelt. Idealism is what has kept our country together, is what inspires us to participate in our representative democracy, and what keeps us coming back even in the face of partisan politics. We believe it’s worth it, even when we’re disgusted, exasperated, impatient with the workings of our government. How can we not? Despite everything that has happened, despite what others may think, I still believe that this is the greatest country in the world. Why? Because, I believe that underneath it all, we still have a chance to realize the dreams of Madison and Jefferson.
I suppose idealism has its negative connotations as well, especially when used in terms of today’s two-party political landscape. I would prefer, however, to use the words partisan or dogmatic when referring to the contentious squabbling that passes for political debate in Congress and elsewhere. What ever happened to reasoned consideration? Is it so bad to change your mind based on new information and persuasive arguments? Would you be betraying your party if you considered the opposing arguments in a debate on their merits and didn’t dismiss them directly because they came from the other side of the aisle? It disturbs me to read that Howard Dean has said he “hates” Republicans. What have they done to deserve such strong feelings? Are Republicans and Democrats not both active participants in our democracy, charged with the task of bringing us together to develop and abide by common principles? Using the word “hate” pretty much sabotages the possibility of reasoned debate from the outset. I know Mr. Dean is not the only one to have such strong feelings towards his political opponents, but his is an excellent example of this party-first model that is suppressing the free expression and exchange of ideas, and, consequently, the practice of democracy as it was originally envisioned by the framers.
Call me a dreamer, or an idealist, but I believe that e pluribus unum aren’t just some arcane words on a coin but a mandate for us as citizens to effect a government that brings together all of our divergent passions, interests, and beliefs into one common goal, one perfect union.
Well done, Robert James! (In case you can't hear, I'm applauding.)
Why is it that Jon Stewart and his comedy writers on The Daily Show offer more piercing political insight than politicians and pundits on either side of the aisle? They're not ideologues, and they don't actually do anything (they only comment on...) but really now, aren't they more honest than just about anyone else you can think of?
By the way Harris... EXCELLENT comment to Randy's post (which was, in and of itself, a very good post).
To answer your question, Sean, yes, they are more honest than any other news organization I can think of. I often find out alternative issues with headlines that I would not have known existed. They do a better job delivering "fake news" than real news outlets do with real news. Why is that?
For the record, Harris' response is both moving and patriotic. Measured oratory like this will move America forward.
Post a Comment
<< Home