Michael Kinsley gets it mostly - but not completely - right today (by way of Washington Monthly, since I don't have a login at the LA Times):
It's true that people on my side of the divide want to live in a society where women are free to choose and where gay relationships have civil equality with straight ones. And you want to live in a society where the opposite is true. These are some of those conflicting values everyone is talking about. But at least my values...don't involve any direct imposition on you. We don't want to force you to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same sex, whereas you do want to close out those possibilities for us. Which is more arrogant?We on my side of the great divide don't, for the most part, believe that our values are direct orders from God. We don't claim that they are immutable and beyond argument. We are, if anything, crippled by reason and open-mindedness, by a desire to persuade rather than insist. Which philosophy is more elitist? Which is more contemptuous of people who disagree?
I find the first paragraph much more persuasive than the second. A quick look around the left-leaning side of the web this last week shows an awful lot of contempt and close-minded prejudice to people on that side of the divide, at least in some circles. Some of it was just post-election angst venting, but some is more deep-seated than that.
And when it comes to science, it's harder to say that folks on this side of the divide don't want to impose. We may feel that evolution, for example, is an obvious choice for what to teach in schools, but if your view is belief-based then I can see that mandating the teaching of evolution is a forcible imposition. Some of us may like to think that the Scopes trial settled this issue decades ago, but events in Kansas in 1999 and Wisconsin today are showing that this issue is by no means dead.
Ugh. So many issues, so may ways to alienate people. I just hope we can all find some sanity at the end of it.
UPDATE: Digby got in touch with his funny side today & came out with a good post on this issue as well.
Update #2 (6/29/06): Welcome, Volokh readers.....
Comments (1)
I disagree that Kinsley got it wrong in his second paragraph. I have long argued that the left is capable of analyzing itself into inaction, of "understanding others" to the point of moral paralysis, a state that, as I said some years ago, "more or less equates political and moral uncertainty with Truth."
Doonesbury had a good strip on just this point: Mark gripes about something to his partner (whose name slips my mind) to which the latter responds by saying "You know why we always win? Because we conservatives know we're right, so unlike you we don't feel the need to take account of anyone else's views. So we roll you every time."
After a pause, Mark says "You know, you have a point there," to which his partner gleefully replies "See? Only a loser would admit that!"
Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But as a general description, Kinsley's observtion is spot on.
In fact, your observation about evolution is an example. Scientific truth - which is what evolution is - is not a matter of opinion, political debate, popularity contests, or elections. It is what it is. It is, and should be, taught in just that way for just that reason.
Can I understand how some people might feel that an imposition? I can. But I do not believe in backing off from the truth because it makes some people uncomfortable.
Posted by LarryE | November 9, 2004 11:36 AM