It’s impossible these days to escape the turmoil we see in American politics. The frontage encompasses everything from race to the environment. Nothing is untouched. All is politicized. Much of what besets the nation is rooted in a continuation of the “Culture Wars.” This is not new. In August of 1992, Pat Buchanan, running for the Republican nomination for President, made fighting for the culture a center piece of his effort to upend then President George H.W. Bush. In his speech before the GOP convention, he concluded with these famous words “My friends, we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.” He sounded a call to action for those worried about the destruction of our culture. We hear the echo today as we witness a continued assault on traditional, historic values.
Traditional values are often thought of as those associated with faith, family, and freedom. These were the values that our founders embraced and used to shape their vision for the nation. It was an imperfect vision. It’s a sad fact that our founders failed to end slavery at our founding or to advance women’s suffrage ab ovo. But they had the wisdom to provide a means for us—in our Constitution—to right the injustice of our founding once we, as enlightened people, found the courage to do so.
In this regard, one of our traditional values is speaking against injustice, whether advocating for civil rights or against the overbearing and intrusive nature of government that attempts to proscribe our freedoms. Such issues frequently require debate in a free society. But often our debates are mere arguments filled with invective.
We frequently hear that we must “have a conversation” about one thing or another. But are these sincere invitations to converse? What does it mean to “have a conversation?” Do we take it literally as an oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas? Will facts also occupy a place in these “conversations?” Will the minds gathered around the topic be open to new and germane information that bears on an issue? Will the “conversation” be focused on solutions that are actually efficacious while avoiding the creation of new conflicts or producing unintended consequences that make matters worse?
We are repeatedly told that we need a “national conversation” on controversial issues. But will it be one based on facts or feelings alone? Will it be one where there is a sincere and honest exchange of facts, data, and context as opposed to one that excludes information uncomfortable or disquieting to the hearer? Will speakers be disciplined in keeping themselves on point, avoiding ad hominem attacks designed to discredit participants or non sequiturs purposed to divert the discussion away from a central issue? In other words, will it be a legitimate debate that seeks to distill the truth of a problem? That is, after all, the intent of the First Amendment, to allow a free people to speak honestly in the hope that in ensuing debates on this or that topic we will arrive at truth and devise policies that help us resolve issues by garnering public consensus.
Sadly, many of the calls for “a conversation” today are insincere. Why? Because the issuers are not interested in distilling truth. They seek a certain outcome and having “a conversation” amounts to “you sit here, listen to my complaint, and agree with me.” That is not a debate or a conversation. That is a demand. And syrupy calls for a “conversation” —shrouded in unctuous appeals—are a contrivance. Are the people calling for a “conversation” on race willing to talk about black-on-black murder in our cities that breaks the hearts of mothers, fathers, family, and friends? Are those seeking a “conversation” on drug abuse willing to consider the proven nature of addiction? Are those who pine for a “conversation” on more social spending willing to look seriously at the effect of government dependency on personal responsibility and the work ethic? Are those who yearn to save the environment—like “New Green Deal” advocates—willing to consider the very real and unavoidable impact on jobs and our economy?
Until we are willing to have a genuine conversation—a factual debate with respectful listening—on the ills that beset American society, no one will profit by insincere calls for one. Presently, we are yelling at one another. What if sincere people—thinkers, ones without preconceived and contrived outcomes—were to attempt to distill the truth of a matter? Our imperfect founders gave us a perfect tool for this brew: The First Amendment. But you can’t distill truth by banning speech and disallowing facts that discomfort. Both elements are necessary ingredients in the mash. Besides, genuine conversation requires a “stiff shot” of truth, albeit properly distilled. Cheers.
Many of you have ordered my book Desert Redleg: Artillery Warfare in the First Gulf War. THANK YOU! Please visit my book pages on Amazon and Goodreads to write a personal review. Also, this coming week is the Birthday of the US Army, June 14th! (Also Flag Day.) Make it a great Army day by purchasing my book. If you have already, then purchase one for a veteran! Thanks!
0 Comments