Sunday, July 11, 2004
Wrong vs Right: The Language of Conservatism
On the other hand, Michael Moore, writer and director of the film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” crosses that line regularly. The line is not set forth in the criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war. Edward I. Koch, who served as mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, is a partner in the law firm of Bryan Cave. Fahrenheit 9/11 propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation
I’ve been tired of reading about Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, so I didn’t actively seek this position statement by Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City out. I’m not an ardent read of the Always On Network, but this time I was attracted to there pages by a “blog” by FCC Chairman Powell. After reading Chairman Powell’s remarks, I was reminded why I don’t read Always On more frequently, but decided to browse around anyway. So I happened upon Mr. Koch’s article, and was planning to skim it, when a fragment of the above statement screamed out at me, ”The line is not set forth in criminal statutes, but it is determined by Americans who know instinctively what actions and statements taken and uttered violate the obligations of responsibility and citizenship they deem applicable in time of war.”
It’s a huge statement. It’s a statement that I’m sure had many of people from the White House to middle America nodding their head in agreement. It’s one of those statements that come from political pundits and ultra conservatives with nary a blink of eye, with such earnest belief in their righteousness that its so easy to accept. Obviously, there are such things as right and wrong, social responsibility, and even political acuity. But this statement attempts to blend the three together. For what reason, to bound and gag by honor, the honest outrage and feelings of despair felt by Americans; to create an exemplary behavior where honest independence should rule the day.
Is there a line determined instinctively by Americans that defines our obligations and responsibility to citizenship?Is the instinct of each, the instinct of all? Is an obligation of membership to be non-critical of the organization you belong? If a line is crossed, is the crosser un-American? The questions can continue for sometime, but they in someway deflect from the true issue. Is it right or even reasonable to bound together three spheres of influence—moral, social, and political— to create a fourth sphere that supersedes and attempts to obscure all the nuanced development of its parentage.
The moral sphere, right vs wrong, an age old dilemma struggled through daily by most. There are millions of tangental issues and situational responses. It’s the personal tied to the historical, tied by god, love, environment, and years of behavioural training. Lord knows I’m just as likely as the next to tell someone they are wrong, but I, perhaps instinctively, know that its rarely that easy. The moral sphere is personal, and by its very definition somewhat malleable. That’s not to argue that there is no definitive right or wrong, but that the application of right or wrong to most situations is “wrong”. It produces a grey where white and black use to stand distinct. It strays into categories of familial and social responsibility.
This leads us to social responsibility. My bias is I’m an ardent and adamant believer, occasionally even a crusader for social responsibility. That said, social responsibility ascends the personal obligations of the moral sphere. It steps beyond, “Am I Right? or Am I Wrong?” into the world of “Is it right? or Is it wrong?” The personal mitigated by society. I’m a firm believer that there are privileges afforded to us regardless of income or social stature. Intelligence and wealth are just two of a multitude of privileges bestowed to some and not others. And without debate on depth and breadth of those attributes, I firmly believe that those that have are obligated to help those who don’t. The moral sphere may have you ask, “Is it right for me to have wealth?” The sphere of social responsibility would ask, “Is it right in your wealth, to walk among those so obviously without, and not extend a helping hand?”
Let’s not forget the last sphere, the political. The political sphere arose out of social responsibility, but redefined itself via the determination of “institutions”. Politics is so rarely about people, and so specifically about the institutions defined and developed to insure that people live together somewhat justly. Just like the moral and social responsibility spheres, politics has its ties to right or wrong, but those ties are limited by the determination of institutions to perpetuation. Survival is an underlying goal of of all species, including those entities defined and developed by society—the corporate institute including its brethren.
Think closely of the “white lie”. The “white lie” is a child of political acuity, in both political and social life. The “white lie” occurs when it is determined that any entity other than self is more important than being right, true, or just specific. Think of a lovers folly with a miscreant barber. If you are at home, you may speak the truth and state disdain for said barber’s barbering skills. But in public, political acuity determines that pleasing your partner maybe more important than speaking your mind. So statements like, “You always look beautiful to me,” fall rapidly and surely from your mouth. The relationship is an entity. An entity unto which you express loyalty and a measure of responsibility to. It requires care and feeding as much as you and your partner.
The development of social institutions—such as governments and the laws contained therein, required a commitment be made to those entities. A commitment very much like a personal relationship. You contribute, you compromise, you grow, your partner grows, and hopefully the relationship grows with you. The political sphere is your relationship to institutions, and what is right or wrong for an institution is, oddly enough, often in conflict with what is morally right or wrong.
Think of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, an official elected in part via the political machine of the San Francisco Democratic Party. Based on politics, based on political acuity, based on law, Gavin Newsom should have never even uttered the words, that lesbians and gays deserve marriage, and its denial to them amounted to discrimination. Gavin Newsom had made commitments to society and government. His relationship to the political sphere, should have tied, bound, and gagged him into maintaining the status quo. A sense of right and wrong, hailed from god knows where, gave him strength to stand on moral grounds. His morals colluded with his social responsibility to combat political acuity.
It was brave. It was invigorating. It was the first political act in a very long time, that took me by surprise, shook me, and screamed stand-up. Edward Koch and crew would have you believe that your ties to the political must at all costs supersede your beliefs in right and wrong, and temper your social responsibility. But these are lies—intricately woven lies that resemble the truth in most measures. Are there times when it’s not in your best interest or the best interest of society to speak to your mind? Yes. Will there be times when political acuity override personal ideology of right and wrong? Yes. Do you have a responsibility to the country of your citizenship? Yes. Is social responsibility a reasonable request of civic duty? Yes. Then if all this is true, who can you justify stating that you disbelieve in your country’s action or publicly reprimand your nation’s leaders?
The fallacy is that right or wrong in the political sphere requires commitment to the perpetuance of the institution. The truth is that the idea of the institution—what it is suppose to be—requires our commitment. What it currently is, requires our honesty? It requires the full weight of our moral and social responsibilities so that we may continue to shape, shift, and develop our institutions. Stagnant institutions are equivalent to stagnant relationships. They are headed for death or some metaphoric end. You can accept the relationship as never changing and collude in its demise or you can rail against entropy and create a catalyst for change.
Edward Koch would have you believe that you are powerless, for the need to maintain an institution, even one that is failing, is more important than right or wrong. He would have you believe that this need for codependence is intrinsical, that all moral American’s know where and when they should lie for their government. I say moving so far from your moral beliefs that you are inert, is tantamount to abuse, self or legislated. I say, he is wrong.
Footnotes
Other Details
Categories: Society •
Viewed: 653
Comments: 0
Permalink: http://www.wide-eyed.org/main/article/wrong_vs_right/
Comments
-
Sorry, no comments right now; but you could be the first.