I watched East of Eden last night, based on the book by John Steinbeck, starring James Dean. The most dominant theme that struck me was the contrast between two sides of morality. On the one hand we have people that strive to live by moral principles, but fail to have basic human compassion - Adam and Aron. On the other hand, we have people who have great compassion, but fail to place any value on moral principle - Cal and Abra. The obvious implication that God falls into the former of these categories is unfortunate. Adam and Aron are repeatedly referred to as "good", when in fact they come off quite heartless. God could not be God without compassion. And moral principle is only part of what it means to be "good".
American politics, and our wicked two party system, tend to lead us to believe that we must choose between compassion and morality. The liberals are supposed to believe in compassion, but utterly reject morality. Extreme liberals often even see the morality that most of us trust in itself as a great source of evil. The conservatives, on the other hand, are supposed to believe in morality, but completely dismiss compassion. If everyone were moral, they say, there would be no need for compassion in the political spectrum. It is "not the role of government", they say, to be kind, or to show compassion. This is also known as passing the buck.
Those of us who value both morality and compassion find ourselves alienated on both sides of American politics. We get yelled at very angrily by people on both sides. What becomes clear when you take a stand for civility and reason, and reject the singular rightness of extreme arguments is that the divide in American politics is false. It is an illusion which traps us away from truly benign governance and steals away our will to press for policy which is simply good and wise, and balanced.
Why must we believe that our law must either respect a woman's right to choose or a fetus' right to live, but not both. Isn't forcing a woman who has been violently raped by her uncle to bear his child and raise that child in abject poverty evil? And isn't granting a woman the right to murder countless unborn children for her own convenience, because she can't be bothered to be responsible with her power to create life also evil? There are other countries on this planet who have managed to write laws which walk an appropriate middle road, outlawing evil things, allowing good things, and presuming innocence in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Why can't we believe in the value of the individual as well as the value of the collective? There are some things that are better handled via individual choice, and others that affect everyone equally, and are natural public decisions. Some things are private, and it would be a violation to uncover them. Other things would be wrong to hide. Some people constantly say that they don't want the government to tell them what to do. They need to see that they are not alone on this land, and as long as what they do affects others, we have a right to formulate laws to govern each other. They are also right to be wary of tyranny. Although our country as a whole is far from tyrannical, there are occasionally individuals in government that abuse their authority unjustly. They must be stopped. It is my opinion though, that we are far wiser at the moment to be on our guard against corporate tyranny.
Often I find people very disillusioned with their government. While the two party system does very much cripple our democratic process as long as it remains firmly seated, it remains very much our choice who we elect. It's true that many of our representatives are little more than puppets. But they are our puppets. It is our responses to the polls that they pander to. What those polls consistently reveal is that nearly half of us just hate the other half of us and all of their ideas. So our puppets have their marching orders.
