In the movie Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Anakin Skywalker says to Obi-Wan Kenobi: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." Obi-Wan responds, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Now for those of you who are (surprisingly in this day and age) unfamiliar with the Star Wars movies, Anakin Skywalker, previously the student of Jedi Master Kenobi, goes on to become the penultimate villain, Darth Vader. The Jedi are, in that universe, protectors and keepers of peace within the Galaxy and the Sith are their evil opposites, bent on control of the Galaxy through power, coercion and violence. How, you ask, does this all relate to our great country, the land of the free and the home of the brave? Well, let me tell you.
My job, the work I do to make the money upon which I live and survive, is to speak to or listen to others speak to the American public concerning political issues. Now, I was politically active before I held this job, and I continue to pay close attention to American politics and spend a large portion of my non-working hours examining and attempting to understand how the politics of our country work and how it effects the citizens of our country. While I would not claim myself to be an expert in any way, I do feel I have a much better understanding and exposure to American politics than the average Joe. As such, I've come to understand that there is an extreme polarity when it comes to political beliefs in this country, and it manifests on both ends of the political spectrum.
I am consistently annoyed, disgusted and saddened that I am unceasingly faced with the mindset that disagreement with a particular point of view or manner of going about achieving a goal equates to direct opposition of that point of view or manner of achieving that goal. Let me give a cartoonish and fictional example. The town council of Smallville, U.S.A. has a proposal before it to erect a life size statue of Superman in the town square. Councilman Smith argues against the statue and Councilman Jones argues for the statue. The argument however, as is far too common in political arenas, does not concern the viability of erecting a statue of Superman, but instead devolves into extremist vocalizations regarding the character of those arguing either side. Councilman Jones claims that that Councilman Smith, because he does not want to allocate funds for the statue, hates Superman, truth, justice and the American way. Councilman Smith argues that Councilman Jones, because he wants to erect the statue, is for the wonton spending of city funds and patently unappreciative of the hard earned tax-dollars which the town citizens have contributed through their taxation.
The truth of the matter is, neither is likely the case. Councilman Smith in actuality has no problem with Superman or truth, or justice or the American Way. Instead, Councilman Smith is concerned that there are more important, frugal and productive means of spending tax-payer dollars. Councilman Jones in actuality sees the erection of the statue as a way of announcing to the world just how patriotic the town citizens are as well as a way of producing tourism dollars into the town economy by taking advantage of the fact that the town has the same name as the town in which Superman grew up as a child. However, instead of concentrating on discovering a way in which the council can arrive at a consensus concerning the proposed project and examining the pros and cons of each side of the argument, each side in the argument instead attacks their opponent in the belief that that opponent has malevolent or improper motivations. An omniscient viewer of the situation, however, would perceive that both Smith and Jones in actuality have benevolent motivations. Both wish to do a good thing with the tax-payer dollars, they simply disagree on how to go about spending those tax-payer dollars in a responsible and reasonable manner. This then is one of the most common and frankly harmful scenarios in American politics in our day and age.
To use a real and terrifyingly important issue in American politics today, I'll use the controversy concerning welfare reform. The left side of the political spectrum in the United States tends to argue for increases in spending to expand and increase aid to those it considers 'less fortunate' and that current models do not do enough to help out those below poverty level or those who are unable to provide for themselves. The right side of the spectrum tends to argue that too much is being spent on such programs and that too much corruption in the system has made it wasteful and that too much is given to those who then become dependent upon that system and results in a reduction of drive to pull themselves out of a bad situation. All too often I see this expressed in an oppositional argument. The left claims that the right does not care for the underprivileged and in their heartlessness would toss the 'less fortunate' to their own fates and to perish in ignominy. The right often spouts arguments that the left desires to control the country by eliminating the middle class and reducing the majority of civilians into government dependency therefore allowing those in power to rule over the country with the power of welfare dollars.
While there may in fact be those who are guilty of such accusations, I believe that the truth is that both sides wish to effectively help those who do in deed need it, they simply disagree on what is the most productive way of doing so. As I stated before, I listen to a multitude of American citizens and their beliefs on political issues and I've not once in the literally millions of people I've talked to or heard from who truly are guilty of the absurd arguments of which they are accused. Never once have I heard a conservative say 'screw 'em, take all their help away and let them suffer unto death', nor have I ever heard a liberal state, 'beat them into government dependency so we can control their lives as we see fit'. I truly and honestly believe that both sides, for the most part, wish to find a solution to the problem of poverty and government dependency, but this is rarely, if ever, how I see either side portray the other. Instead it is a constant refrain of 'if you are not with me, then you are my enemy'. It is far too sad that the fictional character Obi-Wan Kenobi is not a leading politician in our government because he is correct in that dealing with absolutes rarely, if ever, leads to a solution to a problem.
