There is a difference between protesting an act of a country and protesting the country itself. It may be difficult to see or understand the distinction, but there is indeed a distinction, just as there is a difference between emptying or changing the bathwater and throwing out the baby that sits in it.
I can remember marching against the Vietnam War in the 1960s. I, along with most of my fellow marchers, was marching as a proud American upset with my country’s involvement in Vietnam. I was protesting that involvement, the decisions that led to it, and the decisions to remain involved. I was not protesting the country itself.
Contrast many of the protests we see today that include signs and proclamations that “America was never great; we need to overthrow this system,” “Revolution,” and “This country cannot be reformed, it must be overthrown.” These are one’s I can print here – others include far more violent sentiments against both the country and its leadership. The specific issue allegedly being protested is often lost in the much louder rhetoric against the country itself. Indeed, sometimes the actual point of the rally seems to be to protest the country; there is no focused issue being discussed.
Protesting an issue or an act is very specific. It voices a position that something the country has or has not done should be rectified. Such protests are a very real and necessary part of democracy. They are one of many ways in which the people can speak, and protests over a specific issue have often been the catalyst that has caused our country to improve itself: giving women the vote and the civil rights legislation ending segregation are just two examples of actions by the government that were preceded by specific protests about these issues. Protests such as these led to reformation; they did not completely overthrow our system of government. Rather, they made our country better.
And, here lies a key to one of the perhaps insurmountable problems in our country today. Whereas, in the past we could debate issues while all sides unanimously believed in our country and our system of government, today we debate issues while some believe that the basic system can be reformed or improved and others truly believe we should just throw out the entire system.
In reality we are often not debating specific issues, but whether we should keep our system of government or completely throw it out and start over. It is far more difficult to come to any resolution or compromise on that issue than it is to resolve or compromise on a specific point or action currently being taken or ignored within a system that all members of the debate agree is basically good.
Let’s consider a simple example. If we have a garment that we agree is worthy of keeping but needs to be altered, we might argue about whether it is better to take in the side seams or the darts or the back seam, but, we would be in agreement that there is a problem that needs resolution. We might even disagree about how much the garment needs to be taken in. But we are not arguing that we need to replace the garment itself. In such a case we will ultimately be able to resolve the issue and alter the garment, hopefully in a way that is satisfactory to all. But, if we have a situation in which some believe the garment is basically good but must be altered while others believe there is no hope for the garment and it must be replaced, then we have a far bigger problem.
Today we have those who believe in America, in its system, a Democratic Republic with essentially a capitalist economic system. Some believe that it is near perfect as is; others see areas that need improvement in various areas. Those people could probably discuss and reach compromises on nearly all those issues. But, today there is another group who do not believe in that system. They do not see its possibility and its hope but rather find its promises to be empty or hopeless and therefore they see the solution to any imperfection as a complete rewrite of America itself.
So, there really is a divide between those who would simply throw out or change the bathwater and those who would toss the baby as well, refill the bath and replace the current baby with someone new.
This is a huge divide!
If there is any hope of closing or crossing this divide (and I’m not sure that there is) we first must actually face it square on. Keep or toss the baby? Do we need a Solomon to help us decide? We cannot split the baby in two (see my recent posts dated 8/10 and 8/13/18 on socialism and democracy and the incompatibility of the two). This is far more than an issue about a specific act or inaction of our government. This is an issue of our government itself and whether to retain our identity with all its flaws, working to alter it so it fits us better, or whether to completely replace it with some other system.
A question such as that requires a far more informed debate than many are currently willing to have. It requires an understanding of history and of various governmental systems. It requires the ability to look beyond the immediate and consider both short term and long term consequences of any decisions. It requires an understanding of freedom and individual rights and the type of freedom that America upholds versus what other countries may define as freedom.
I am not really sure if those who currently assert that they would like to see a complete end to our democracy really mean that, or if they are simply screeching hyperbolic statements as a way of venting frustration at not having everything exactly as they want it. I think there is some self-examination required in light of a full understanding of what replacing our country with something else would mean.
So, we have the bathtub and the baby. Please consider the options before doing anything rash!
No comments:
Post a Comment