Saturday, June 26, 2004
I have some follow-up thoughts on my previous post about the left's misapplication of their worldview. I spoke of the need for a new liberal paradigm of argument, but I didn't go into much detail about what that new paradigm should look like. So here goes:
Everything in moderation. That's the essential principle liberals should be building their arguments around. You can't tell someone to stop drinking or stop smoking or stop owning guns. You just can't; it comes across as smug, pretentious and you won't change anyone's mind. It's the equivalent of the right's tactic of telling women to stop having abortions. Not too many converts from that stratagem.
So, what can you do? Educate on the dangers of drinking to excess, of smoking to the point of addiction, of keeping guns lying around where children can get their hands on them. Pursue a policy that limits over-use instead of prohibiting access. Not only is such a course much more apt to catch on, but it doesn't sound heavy-handed or condescending.
People don't like changing their lifestyles, that's a fact. So instead of proposing massive change, how about nudging gently in a safer direction? Frankly, it's not anyone's place to say you CAN'T smoke, you CAN'T drink, you CAN'T own a gun; one of the things about this country is that you really, honestly are free to do all of those things. But it is acceptable and indeed responsible to promote the safe, educated and moderate use of such examples. This extends to drugs, abortion, sex, littering, etc. All the "social ills" which liberals go on a crusade against would be far simpler to conquer if a measured line is taken.
The idea that people have a right to partake in such vices -- and I understand the argument that such a right does not extend to damaging the public health -- segues into my second point. More and more recently the left has found itself in opposition to that it cherishes above all else: free speech. It's partially a reaction to the clarion call of conservatism embodied by President Bush, but it's not a new phenomenon. It's hypocritical to say that gays need to be able to march while at the same time trying to block neo-Nazis. You can't have one without the other; its the ultimate necessary evil.
People have a right to be racist. No one likes to hear that, no one on either side of the political spectrum. And those who know me can tell you that I'm a strong supporter of harmonious race relations. But look -- if someone wants to think that blacks are inferior, it is wrong to stop them from expressing that view. It is wrong to stop them from expressing that view because if they can't, then blacks can't march. And gays can't have a pride day. And a million moms can't descend on the capital. Because if you start abrogating the right to free speech, then you better be willing to see it disappear across the board.
There's nothing wrong with trying to educate that person and expose him to different perspectives. There's nothing wrong with diligently making sure that person doesn't act violently on such opinions. And there's nothing wrong with warding against government putting into place policies based around discriminatory ideals. But to ban the KKK from holding a rally or stop the neo-Nazis from protesting is just plain wrong.
Similarly, you can't seek to shut the mouth of those who disagree less radically, whether it be opponents of abortion or the NRA. This applies to the conservatives just as forcefully. Free speech is what this liberal democracy is built around, and it cannot -- cannot, cannot, CANNOT -- be allowed to degrade.
So those are my two points for the day: Liberals need to adopt a paradigm of moderation, not prohibition, and everyone needs to step back and re-establish an appreciation for the freedom of speech.
Now we're talking.
