Winging It

Posted by Paul J. Amore on 05.07.2009

Wherein I stand against the tide of compromise...

The concept of left-wing and right-wing comes from the French legislature during the time of that nation's late-18th-century revolution, where those in favor of keeping things generally the way they were sat on the right side of the chamber, and those in favor of sweeping change sat on the left side. This is essentially a point of epistemology as applied to ethics: is the good achived by examining the past, or the future? Is utopia a steady state, or a steady rise?

Today, in the US, neither side is so simplistic. Each wing has their issues they want changed, and those where they want the status quo. The beautiful thing is to put yourself in their shoes and enjoy the righteousness. One wishes for total honesty from either side, just for clarity. Something along the lines of this:

Hey, Miss California, you're a bigot, not because you said you think marriage is between a man and a woman, but because you think it. And the only reason you think so is because some old men thousands of years ago came up with some stupid idea that there's a ghost in the sky who likes it when you treat others like crap, only you're stupid and selfish enough to believe it. You want to think you're superior to gays just for an ego boost. Well, I got news for you, honey, you're not better than anyone. The only way you achieve good in this world is to love and support others, not step on them.

Or this:

Hey, guy with too many names and a weird beard and a rag on your head, watch your rear end because I am just waiting to get you in a torture chamber where I can hear you scream and hopefully get some info out of you that will stop a terrorist attack. Because even though you have some good people, my culture is superior to yours and you are going to learn it the hard way. If you had just been sensible and dressed normal and talked English, you could have been ok, Achmed. Now, it's the water board for you.



However, just to talk about right and left wings is limiting us to one dimension. There are other wings out there. How about a South wing, comprising the post-9/11 security voters, who favor aggressive foreign policy but are also social and fiscal liberals? And we need a North wing, for their antitheses, being the Ron Paul supporters who want less government and less military intervention. There's a down wing, for pure collectivists, who want control both by government and by religion, both making sure each person stays in lock-step with the correct ideals. For me, I'll take an up wing, where those of us who worship individual choice, even when it damages society. And a completely-outside-the-box wing for your actual anarchist.

Here's where it gets tricky though. Some of these wings are for freedom, and some are for security, and some are for control, and they all might have inherent flaws, and superficial flaws, but even the worst one is still superior to a certain group.

Moderates.

Centrists, middle-of-the-roaders, pragmatists, and those who don't subscribe to any ideology. The people whose political idea is to operate on the spur of the moment, with no rhyme or reason, who can't be argued against because by the time the argument is put forth, they're on to a new position.

In the first place, it's dirty pool to play politics with no objective in sight, just trying to take down—or steal, which is worse—the ideals of others. Moreover, it's a sad state of affairs when you subsume yourself to the issues. Are we to be the masters of our own lives or the servants? It might be excusable for a youth, still reading his way to competency, to be rudderless and not know where his values lie, but it is inexcusable for anyone claiming the title of adult to not have a philosophy that governs his life.

By what right do the plurality (sadly so) of citizens claim to have their stake in government when they don't know what it is they want? By what right to they tell me, who has ideals, that I cannot follow them? What is the justification for the concept that merely by drawing breath for 6,574 days (anyone checking my math, don't forget leap years) you get a say in ruling other people?

But beyond that, what irks me is every two-bit blogger or talking head who claims that the Republicans are too far right, four years after another shift claimed the Democrats were too far left. (Aside: it's not the same group. The right-wing are the ones claiming "too far left" and vice versa. If I didn't know any better I'd say this was not a sincere desire to improve society but a wish to eliminate the ideology of the other side.) The right answer is in the middle? Who says so? What makes you think it? Maybe the right answer is to let the sides fight it out. Maybe the right answer is to split up the world into mini-states and let each person choose his own, based on his values.

Claiming you don't know what's right but want to guess anyway is the tertiary sin of politics. Claiming that right is to be found in a Chinese menu of positions is the secondary sin. Claiming there is no right is the primary sin. For the sake of whatever is good, call something good! Establish values, come up with a philosophy, think!