March 07, 2007 08:40 AM UTC

How about just "reasonable"?

• 0 Comments
• by: yevrahnevets

We’re still so saturated in the “conservative v. liberal” political spectrum, nobody seems to question whether it’s the only spectrum along which we can identify ourselves and across which we can debate. I’m a social liberal, a fiscal conservative, an admirer of the power of markets who believes they should be harnassed to serve values that they don’t serve when left to run untended (i.e., the production of public goods, including social justice), a teacher who does not automatically reject the idea of school vouchers, a creative free spirit who believes that children need lots of (loving) discipline and guidance, an opponent of limitless entitlements, an advocate of more subtle and substantial investments in solving the social problems entitlements don’t really solve, a believer that we need to address all of our problems and challenges with an understanding of the social systems in which they are embedded; a reverent admirer of the complexity and sophistication of the institutions that time and numbers have produced, realizing that most ideas for radically improving them are superficial and ill-fated; but simultaneously a person who recognizes that change is constant, and that clinging to established institutions because they are seen as more functional than the changes underway is as dysfunctional as trying to sweep away the past and impose a narrow vision on the present and future. I’m all over the place, from the perspective of “liberal” and conservative” (though admittedly much more liberal than conservative), because when reason precedes ideology, ideology falls apart. When ideology precedes reason, reason falls apart. Which do you prefer?

So, relying on reason, good-will, and a historical and global perspective, there are certain issues that really shouldn’t be that hard to figure out.

Opposition to gay marriage is knee-jerk bigotry, based on arguments that are utterly vacuous and reminiscent of the racism we all, hopefully, have come to abhor.

Globalization (economic, political, and cultural) is both inevitable and, on balance, beneficial to humanity. It spreads wealth downhill, and increases the overall quantity of wealth in the world. Ultimately, it will even be a boon to environmentalism and other progressive regulation of the economy, in spite of the short-term damage it seems to do to some developed nations’ progressive policies. We need to deal with the displacements it causes, but not act like luddites trying to freeze the world as it is.

Opposition to embryonic stem-cell research is an act of cruelty to those who could benefit from it. It is based on the insane notion that clusters of human cells require the protections accorded human beings. As I’ve said elsewhere, anyone who believes that and eats meat is the worst kind of hypocrit (the phrase should be “pro-human-life,” at least). Obviously, a slaughtered mammal, fully cognizant of pain and the desire to survive, is a far greater crime against the sanctity of life than the use of incognizant human cells for the benefit of cognizant human beings! (By the way, I’m not a vegetarian, just a person who follows logic wherever it goes). And if killing cells that have the potential to be human beings is immoral, be sure not to use a luffa when you shower! (all cells have the potential to be human beings).

Quote the bible, cite mystical laws of morality with indifference to when and why they evolved, beat the traditional but misguided left-wing (yet nationalistic!) drum that any policy that costs any sector a loss in domestic jobs must be an assault on what’s right and good, argue on behalf of the few to the cost of the many, but steer clear of the combination of logic and sincere good-will! Otherwise, many of our most animated debates would be a lot shorter, and a lot more productive!