How to destroy a society: Try to save it.

The problem with a pluralistic democracy is that no one wants the “pluralistic” part. And most of us are none too keen on the “democracy” part, either.

(Sometimes, I do amazingly stupid shit. This is one of those times. Apparently, I wrote this article back in January...and forgot to post it. I ran across it again while I was cleaning out some garbage on Google's Blogger. It was a bit too good to just delete, so here it is. Belatedly.)

Quoth Webster:

plu·ral·ism

1. a situation in which people of different social classes, religions, races, etc., are together in a society but continue to have their different traditions and interest
2. the belief that people of different social classes, religions, races, etc., should live together in a society
   
   Merriam-Webster (m-w.com)

In my continual scavenging for quotes, I ran across this gem from conservative pundit Mark Levin:

“We now have the liberal playbook and we know what they are doing, and we are using it against them. Unlike the Democrats though, we aren't out to destroy our society, we are out to save it.”

What utter hogwash. Does Levin actually believe that Democrats are deliberately seeking to destroy society, or worse to destroy America itself? Are we (Liberals, not merely card-carrying Democrats) actually so evil? (I mean, I try to be, but…)

What Levin does not appear to realize (or perhaps is deliberately ignoring) is that we are all trying to save society. We all want to leave the world a better place then we found it. We all want to make this a better, stronger, more durable society than we ourselves inherited.

Inevitably, people are going to disagree about the best way to accomplish this. That’s what a pluralistic democracy is for. That’s what compromise is for. We are never going to all agree on the best way to move forward; we have to trust that a solution reached through open debate and compromise, while unlikely to entirely satisfy everyone, is a better way to achieve our common goals. Not perfect, far from it, but better.

Here’s what makes Levin and his ilk dangerous. He (and they) refuse to acknowledge that their opposite numbers (the evil Liberals) are themselves trying to achieve those same goals. Refusing to acknowledge this lets the far right believe that only they can save society, and thus any extreme in the pursuit of that goal is permissible.

And let us not forget that there are Liberal extremists out there as well, those who simply can not (or will not) accept that there are Conservatives who are doing nothing more than trying to make a better society.

As a single society composed of differing ideas, we have but two options; either we move forward or we stand still (going backwards is hardly an option; almost never possible and often disastrous to attempt). Moving forward requires that we all work at it together. Singling out one group or the other and trying to lay the responsibility for society’s evils at their feet is counterproductive. Extremism is extremely counterproductive.

It comes down to this: Working together may not guarantee success, but failing to do so guarantees failure. The sooner we all recognize this, the sooner we can all move our society forward.

The Blues Viking

The thoughts expressed here are mine, and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.