Howdy Nash,
Good to chat with you again, I apologize in advance if the following doesn't make sense, I'm dog tired and my brain has that fuzzy feeling that doesn't bode well for reasoned discourse... Eh, but I press on..
Originally posted by Nash
Kinda frightening, Seagoon. I understand what yer gettin' at, but... well, look at it like this:
51% of the country likes many things about X.
49% of the country likes many things about Y.
Neither group likes everything about either X and Y.
So just because a coupla hundred thousand more people like more things about X than Y, should that mean that everything about X be jammed down everyone's throats?
[/b]
Well Nash, if I were materialist and I thought that almost everything outside of perhaps mathematics came down to personal preferences, I would agree with you. Trouble is, I'm not. I believe that some things really are objectively wrong and others really are objectively right. At one time, prior to the rise of relativism, a belief in objective truth was actually the majority report in Western civilization. In any event, a belief in objective truth means that if y is true and x is false, whether or not 51% of the people prefer x is immaterial, y is still right and should be accepted and practiced.
Let me give you a practical example of this principle: slavery. The practice of manstealing was not right when the majority of people in the United States endorsed it, and it did not become wrong only when a majority of people turned against it. Also, the correct answer to the problem of slavery was never somewhere in-between X (Slavery) and Y (no slavery). Rather, the correct answer is Y, regardless of how many people object that they prefer X and that the "Y-ers" are ramming it down their throats.
Now there are certainly many issues of indifference over which various groups can compromise, and issues which really are simply about preference (sadly these still make up 90% of the arguments that go on in households, churches, workplaces, and bars) but the Supreme Court for instance seldom is called upon to decide issues of indifference (no one ever asked for a Supreme Court decision about whether Blue is better than Purple for instance). They are routinely called upon to render decisions in cases that deal with fundamental ethical issues such as those which deal with life and liberty.
"Pragmatism [and] compromise" is not the weakness but the strength of a Democracy. To find its counterpoint, look to a dictatorship.
Actually, dictatorships are an example of what is called "will to power." They occur when either a group or an individual uses power to force their own preferences upon all the people regardless of whether they are wrong or right. Personally, I'm not a fan of pure democracy either, because they tend to lead to tyranny of the masses and demogoguery. I like constitutional Republics like the US was designed to be.
The genius of the constitutional republic is not in consensus building, it is that theoretically a constitution protects both objective truth from being easily overturned at the whim of the majority AND the rights of the minority are protected and maintained even when their views are unpopular. Republics are built on the idea that truth is precious and that it should prevail over the "will to power" (even when that will to power is the will of the majority).
So if I may be so bold as to take a stab at explaining your disappointment with Bush...
You got used. Sure, you were flooded with cheap little brochures hastilly passed around in your circle with the constant assurances that "We're with you.... and they're most certainly not." And you get the odd born again dime-store phrase sprinkled hither and thither to make you think: "Finally, our President is one of us."
I can understand why you might think that was the case, but actually I've never made my mind up about a candidate based on a Christian Coalition voters guide, nor do they tend to get passed around in my circle. I would also be absolutely opposed to their being distributed in the congregation I pastor. I also never thought of the President as "one of us." I accepted that his worldview was closer to mine than say, Kerry's, but I also realized that politically speaking, we had some huge differences.
Also, please understand, while some evangelicals might, I don't support politicians merely because they claim to be evangelicals, and I certainly wouldn't support a candidate for the supreme court merely because he or she professes to be an evangelical. I have many evangelical friends who are in fact politically liberal (in fact I have a few who are hippies). Our bible study on Friday is made up mostly of evangelicals who have never voted Republican in their lives. I love them as brothers and hope to spend enternity with them, but I wouldn't support them if they ran for elected office. In the same way, I like Antonin Scalia because he is an established, qualified, and tested originalist, even though he has never professed to be an evangelical, while I don't like Miers and don't think she should be on the court, even though she professes to be an evangelical.
Anywho, Nash, got to stop now but thanks for continuing to write and more importantly, to bear with my excessively long rambles...
- SEAGOON
