In all effective democratic processes, the majority must be considered right--even when they may be wrong. This is because, where the people on both sides of an issue make rational proposals and act reasonably in pursuit of the best options. even a united pursuit of the "wrong" position will yield better results when the status quo is not an option.
But when smart and ethical people disagree on opposite sides in pursuit of the best options, there are several possibilities: (1) Each option or position has the potential to be successful if proponents and opponents decide to cooperate to make the choice of the majority succeed. (2) Both option can fail if those on the losing side commit to making the prevailing option fail. But (3) it is also possible that neither option has the potential to succeed. The solution may rest outside the box of perceived or permitted options. In the most successful practices of democratic processes, the people in the group like each other. (Otherwise, they likely would not be--or remain--part of the group.) All join in to make the selected option succeed, with the same enthusiasm as had their preference prevailed. The group acts as one body, much as single individuals do when having to choose from among several options, and must weigh the roads to success and the consequences of both success and failure. Once all the options have been carefully considered and decisions made, individuals don't continually argue within themselves about the choice made. The only debate is about how to best make the choice happen. Therefore, when people within a group seek to sabotage the will of the majority, it is as if some aspect of an individual psyche is seeking to make the option, chosen after careful consideration, fail in order to direct attention to other rejected options. This has been referred to as a house divided against itself, and It's bad if it happens in either individuals and groups.
All groups and institutions work better together when members recognize and acknowledge good ideas that can contribute to the successful achievements of shared goals. Most group goals have more than one route to success. And most times success depends on the resources, skills, and knowledge of those who must lead the pursuit of those goals. Unfortunately, too often, the debate is centered more on the process than on the desired outcomes. Processes are easy to debate and criticize because there is nothing tangible to evaluate. Processes can only be evaluated based on whether or not the pursued goals have been achieved.
What we need, therefore, is a vision for America which enables us to set goals for our economy and expectations of our politics that produce desired outcomes for the American people, outcome that are not beg achieved as increasing shares of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fewer and fewer families. More and more people, as a consequence, are having to live with less than they need.
According to objective experts, the income and wealth gap began in the 1980's during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Many attribute his attacks on unions as the beginning of the decline of union strength and influence. But even before then union money and union member votes often went in opposite directions.
It was certainly a time when the American people's attitudes about helping the "least among us" began to change from attitudes born with the elections of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson two decades earlier. It became all right During the Reagan years to be selfish.
But what caused this wealth gap to widen over the past thirty years? Powerful and smarter people have always had the ability to take advantage of the rest of us. But why in the 1980s? Certainly weakened unions was a factor. Has it been good for the American economy? Will the trend end on its own? If so, what will cause the gap to stop widening
Smart people have opposing positions about the wealth gap, the economy and about the merits government size. But I never hear a description of government that is just right, Why? These people who are disagreeing among themselves are smart people whom we expect and hope are giving us their best, unbiased opinions on issues and options. Of course, if some of these smart experts know that their arguments are flawed but espouse them for political reasons, then voters must make their decisions based on other sources of information. But what and where will they get it? Presently, the people's watch dogs seem to have lost their freedoms of speech and press.
The principle of the majority's being right usually holds within political parties but, in the present political climate, does not hold for decisions that require agreements between the parties. Compromise, call it give and take or flipping a coin, is the only way to reach a "right" solution. After Republicans have defined and described small government and how it best achieves the needs of all Americans and Democrats have done the same for big government, they then should be able to reach middle-ground that is not only "just right' for all Americans.
There is nothing sacred or honorable about economic or social ideologies that they would cause members of Congress to refuse to compromise. The principles of integrity, truthfulness, trustworthiness, honesty and fairness are principles that should not be--and are not expected by most voters to be--compromised. But these are not ideologies..
We must always remember that despite people classifying themselves as liberals, moderates and conservatives or Democrats, Republican and independents, all of us are members of the one nation. We are one body. Consequently, most Americans want Republicans and Democrats to compromise, to assume that the majority is "right." But big money, including those feeding at the upper end of the income gap, says, "NO."
In November, voters will determine if that is a winning strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment