dlmCommentary

The ants of public dialogue - tiny, one-dimensional, efficient, relentless - are those who are eloquent experts in one side of a cultural debate. They are commonly observed in every tiny hole of Western Civilization - the office, the dinner party, the television - and they are nothing if not passionate.

Even people who don’t “follow politics” are exposed to them because they can not be ignored, or put to sleep with anti-bug spray. They have their favorite politicians, commentators, movie stars, movies, books, magazines and popular philosophers.

And Lord have mercy, do they know what they believe! They have at least three of the following: quotes from the founding fathers or the founding dead white males, depending on your perspective, questionable research data (“studies show”... “everybody knows that...), Bible verses, historical illustrations of “the point,” and the names of plenty of people who agree with them.

Here’s the problem: they live in a hall of mirrors. What makes this particular colony of pests so, er, creepy, is that they almost never have meaningful relationships with people who don’t generally agree with them. The books they read, the friends they hang with, the movies they see, the radio stations that automatically come on when their cars start, all affirm how right they are and how absolutely stupid, wicked or agenda-driven anyone on the other side is.

Such willful, habitual half-blindness does two bad things at the same time: it tends to make one an extremist, since there is no reality check to balance them, and it tends to make one’s extremism seem increasingly mainstream. Thus, very intolerant people can consider themselves to be tolerant, simply because the tests of their tolerance are so infrequent and miniscule. Various prejudices and injustices are enthroned without so much as a debate, simple because they are not *their* kinds of prejudices or *those* particular injustices. Comparatively silly people can consider themselves to be wise on no more worthy criterion than that most people agree with them most of the time.

I am aware that I share the same corrupt or corruptible humanity that characterizes such folks. My observations may be pointless since all of us, myself included, will still go on trying to “feel good about ourselves,” which, after all, is the kind of popular dogma that is usually at the root of such detrimentally self-affirming habits.

But I want you to know that I am trying. I have pretty strong opinions on all the big boom-boom bow-wow issues: abortion, gay rights, racial justice, immigration issues, war in Iraq, eta; but I have made it my goal to, as best as I can, be able to argue for “the other side” of my opinions at least as eloquently as those on the ant farm. Actually, I’ve taken it a little more seriously than that. I really do believe, or think I do, that both sides of any emotional cultural issue have approximately the same number of honorable people, dishonorable people, geniuses, idiots, etc. No cause should be taken up or relinquished simply on the basis of what dirt its enemies can dig up. We’re all dirty, in one way or another; all part of the problem.

It has always seemed to me, for example, that, if you want to have a basic respect for your own gender, you should never let members of the opposite gender define it for you. I hope you see what I mean.

One last thing. In my efforts, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in being what is called a “moderate.” I understand what makes such a label seem so attractive. People don’t want to be identified as extremists; most of us like to think of ourselves as relatively balanced, whole, integrated or whatever idea comes most naturally to each of us.

But I don’t buy it. The fact is, “moderate” can often just be another way of saying that we compromise when we shouldn’t, or that our hidden agenda makes it necessary to *really* pretend we don’t have one, or that we simply don’t give a damn.

No, I think there’s a better alternative to being an extremist than being whatever “moderate” really is. I’m not sure what it is yet, but I think of words like "transcendent" or “willing to be confused” or “willing to feel sorrow.” Somehow, the crucifix seems to offer a pointer in the direction. Who put those nails through those hands? A group on the Right and a group on the Left, right?

Copyright © 2004 Donald L. McIntyre All Rights Reserved