Community - Blogs

Community › Blogs › Politics › "Let's just work together for a better world" by prohit

Let's just work together for a better world

Signal Staff Writer

Last comment by prohit 1 year, 4 months ago.

“Yes, we can!”   Such was the mantra of Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House. How nice would be if you or I can just parade around saying words, hoping it lands us in a 55,000 square foot mansion.   Actually, what is wrong with saying, “Yes, we can!” to each other – as in, yes, we can get along?   A quick glance at some of the comments on local blogs or regional political commentators, it is not a stretch to say we live in a country politically divided.   Two people that would otherwise get along in the normal course of life find themselves on polar opposites when it comes to political viewpoints. All we need to do is survey the field, and we will find Republicans who are fearful of what an Obama administration will mean for this country.   While many debate the potential success or failure of an Obama administration, the discussion will never be as divisive as Proposition 8 in California.   Just a read of The Signal blogs or a viewing of protests throughout the country demonstrates the level of volatility surrounding the issue.   Thankfully, reported violence surrounding the issue appears to be at a minimum, compared to similar, equally touchy issues during the 1960s.   However, the polarity of the issue is just a microcosm of the political climate we currently live in – one where we gravitate away from the center and closer to polar opposites.   What often results is a democracy that struggles to function. As we reach our respective polar positions, we stray away from one of the core foundations of a democratic society – compromise.   “When voting is the extent of our involvement, we avoid having to compromise and, just as importantly, we do not develop any sense of solidarity with those holding different views,” Indiana University’s Paul Herr said in a 2004 essay written for the American Democracy Project.     “We have come to believe that making trade-offs, bargains, and compromises are vices of politics. In our public decision-making, the very idea of compromise has come to be shunned even by those elected officials whose job is to find compromise solutions.   Somehow, compromise has come to mean weakness in position. It is almost as if one person is so convicted of their position they accept it as truth, and anyone who presents the opposite side is false.   As Herr said, we have become a society where the “very idea of compromise is shunned.”   Such is the case with gay marriage. We have come to a point where proponents on both sides are so convinced of their respective viewpoints that the opposing side could not possibly be right. Either side will tell you there is no room for compromise.   One will say there is no such thing as gay marriage. The other will say it is impossible to comprise a civil right.   What’s interesting is how we analyze the arguments presented by both right and left. When you break down each side’s argument, we realize the arguments are one in the same – I am right, you are wrong.   There is no sense of open-minded discussion. No effort is made to understand the other side. Quite the contrary, each side wants to be understood by the other side.   Those opposed to gay marriage will tell the opposition to understand the faith-based definition of marriage, which apparently limits “recognized” unions to one man and one woman.   Conversely, those who claim gay marriage is a civil right argue they must be understood – the issue is not about marriage, but about individual liberty.   Both sides remain headstrong in their respective arguments, emotionally citing “facts” while name-calling the other side.   Ironically, we see claimed “liberals” – those who are supposed to be open-minded and accepting – attacking those who oppose them as closed-minded bigots who fail to accept the “truth.”   Herein lays the problem. When such extreme arguments are made on both sides, an interest commentary can be made of the “shape” of the political spectrum.   It is with debates such as the one surrounding Proposition 8 that I am reminded of a statement a friend of mine once made – where someone could be so far left, they are actually right.   Put in easier terms, a liberal who constantly preaches they know the “truth,” and anyone who does not agree is “lost” and “needs to be taught” is no different from the mentality of someone on the far right.   If anything, this means that the political spectrum is far from linear. Instead, that spectrum is more sphere-like.   If it is sphere-like, then let us think of our political spectrum like the sphere we live in – planet Earth.   There are two traits of Earth’s sphere that parallel a political spectrum – poles and center lines.   Naturally, we have two poles – North and South. Both points are considered the coldest extremes of our planet.   Also, we have an equator, which straddles the exact center of the sphere. Coincidentally, points along the equator are consistently warm.   The farther away one travels from the equator, he or she experiences colder days. This is true regardless of pole, and the level or darkness or sunshine depends on whether it is summer or winter in the respective hemisphere.   Such is true with the political sphere.   The farther away an ideology travels from the center – the metaphoric equator – the colder that ideology it. Fewer people agree, and any chance of co-existing with other ideologies is equally “cold.”   As one ideology approaches the pole, they are at the coldest, most extreme points of the sphere, and there is no way to co-exist.   Ironically, both poles share common characteristics.   Few people live in the arid conditions of either pole, as weather conditions make livability in either condition undesirable.   Analogously, a world of political extremes is not desirable, as conditions are just as volatile – and just as “cold.”   Also, despite the cold, there may be more light than darkness, depending on the party in power. For example, when Republicans have a national consensus, those on the far right may have more light shed on them than those on the far left.   Yet, when the seasons change – when power shifts from elephant to donkey – that light shifts hemispheres, just as in the seasons and sheds more light in the other half.   Just as humans associate happiness with warmth, we find more steady and moderate living conditions closer to the equator. Just consider the lifestyles of the locales like The Bahamas, Jamaica, etc.   It is no different in politics. We as a society do better when we are closer to the warmth, progressing toward the center.   An ideal world is when we understand each other, agreeing to disagree, and doing what is best for everyone – not just those who agree with “our side.”   We need to avoid drifting toward polar opposites. After all, who wants to live in extreme cold weather?   As a straight man who supports gay marriage, I understand the arguments presented by my conservative brothers and sisters.   I understand they were raised by certain principles and morals that are not consistent with supporting gay marriage.   However, that does not take away from the argument my brothers and sisters on the left make. Certainly, we must make every effort to accept people, even if they live a life inconsistent with the majority.   After all, my understanding of what America is that we make an effort to live together despite our differences. Isn’t that what the “United” in “United States of America” means? Isn’t that the ideal our founding fathers hoped would prevail over an infant nation more than 232 years ago?   Put in another way, how can we live in a democracy when we live by the credo “my side is right and your side is wrong”?   As we drift toward polar opposites, we need to remember that “majority rule” is just half of democracy. The other half is “minority rights.”   The only way to maintain minority rights through majority rule is to constantly compromise and work together.   Or, as Herr said in his essay: “In fact, democracy should be a process through which we compromise and thereby work out how we will live together in the society.”   Never forget – if we alienate a minority today, would we want them to alienate us when they become a majority?

Latest Activity: Nov 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by prohit
Send prohit a Message
Report Abuse

Blog has been viewed (188) times.

markari commented on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 13:37 PM

Prohit, I admire your commentary on this topic.
BUt somewhere in all of the "I'm right, you're wrong" drama, you forget that Prop 8 is asking for believers to speak up, and fo rnon-believers to listen.

When the moral majority has spoken, and the liberals poo-poo at their loss, the answer is for the majority to be more open, in spite of all of the insults, and attacks on one's faith.
It is an easy line to blur, but at the end of the day, we all are raised to subscribe to the laws of this country.
Our freedoms are best defined when we carry them out with dignity, and reason.
THis fight looks like a bunch of angry villagers seeking a "do-over", after the vote has been counted.

Why did we vote?
Why didn't the "Gay Marriage activists" seek to remove the issue from the ballot before it was voted on?
If it was unconstitutional in October, why wasn't it stopped then?
Prop 8 was not unfair until it's opponents lost.

THis isn't a simple fight over zoning laws: it is shaking the very foundation of this nation. It's opponents seek to nullify the beliefs of many honest, hardowrking, and loving citizens.
Minorities are the people that have struggled for recognition because of something they cannot change about themselves. Minorities are not the people who subscribe to a particular sexual lifestyle.

While I agree that nobody should be discriminated against based on race, religion, creed, or disability- I don't believe that sexual orientation is anyone's business- and I don't believe that it qualifies as minority status. Saying so thereby dilutes what AMericans of Color, or Jews, or wheelchair bound sisters and brothers have fought so hard for.

If gay Americans seek respect, then it is up to them to behave in a dignified manner- be honorable- please don't try to disavow such an important religious act.
Take Civil Union, make it yours.

MamaLisa commented on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 14:37 PM

Makari, Please understand that the legal right to marry is separate from religion. Just like a civil union, it is a legal contract. A marraige contract just has a few more stipulations. There are a lot of non-religious people who are married. The constitional issue of marraige is about the legal contract, not the religous act/commitment. If you and your religion do not believe in gay marraige, that is an issue for your church and you are free to practice your religion as you see fit - the same way that some religions are allowed to deny women the right to be priests even though our constitution provides equal opportunities for women. The legal contract of marraige has no more to do with your religion than the legal contract of civil union. You are free to practice your religion as you see fit because of the separation of church and state just as minorities are free from any religious restrictions because of the separation of church and state.

markari commented on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 15:12 PM

I think you have entirely missed my point.
Gays are not minorities.

And marriage began in a time when ONLY religious people were joined in union.
Look at your roots.

MamaLisa commented on Friday, Nov 14, 2008 at 15:49 PM

I do understand. Even if you don't consider gays a minority, they are people. The roots of marraige are not in question. The current state of the legal contract is. We live in a country that has a constitution that insures equality and separation of church and state. The legal contract of marraige is not based on a religious litmus test - otherwise couples would have to subscribe to a particular religion in order to be married - and they don't. The roots you are referring to also have stonings, human sacrifices, and other things that have nothing to do with the American Constitution. Our Constitution ensures that religious people can be married according to their particular faith. It also ensures that people cannot be limited by another's religious beliefs. This freedom of religion and from religious oppression is at the root of why people came to America in the first place.

The basis for your 'not a minority' logic is that sexual orientation is a choice. Chosing to have sex is a choice - gay or heterosexual, who you are attracted is not.

prohit commented on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 13:09 PM

Markari -- Gays may not be a "minority" in the sense that we traditionally think. Sure, they are not an ethnic or religious minority.

Instead, they are a political minority. They have a certain lifestyle and viewpoint a majority of Californians/Americans do not share. By definition, this makes gays a minority group.

It is a minority class worthy of protection similar to speech, religion, guns, or any of the other protected classes of our Bill of Rights & Constitution.

The basic point in gay marriage is this -- choice.

Both sides are completely missing this point. If we focus just on the choice aspect of gay marriage, it would be a lot easier to deal with this issue.

I don't mean "choice" as in I choose to be straight or gay. I truly believe we are attracted to who we are attracted to.

I didn't wake up one morning to tell myself, "Gee, I think I will spend the rest of my life attracted to women!" While I am definitely attracted to the opposite sex, it wasn't a conscious decision.

What I mean by "choice" is choosing to live together amidst our differences. Isn't that what makes this country so great?

Regardless of lifestyle choices, so long as your lifestyle does not interfere with my lifestyle, then let bygones be bygones?

Now, I know what some of you will say -- gays are "forcing" their "lifestyles" upon us.

To those who make that argument, aren't you imposing your lifestyle upon gays? Aren't you saying your definition of marriage trump theirs?

But see, arguing this point misses the bigger picture.

There are 300 million people in the United States. We find ways to co-exist with differing lifestyles and choices.

Many of this differences are grounds for major disagreements, but we let it go because, end of the day, you go to your home and mind your business, as do I.

Gay marriage is no different. Sure, there are grounds for serious debate.

But there is a way we can co-exist and have both sides maintain their respective lifestyles.

That is what compromise and working together is all about.

That is what America is all about.

markari commented on Saturday, Nov 15, 2008 at 16:37 PM

To me, it does make a difference: At the end of the day EACH AMerican is afforded the same COnstitutional rights.
However, there are laws that allow- no- call for discrimination. We don't dispute those exceptions- we accept them.
THings like driving, voting, drinking, serving in the military- age discrimination- why keep those things in place is we are all equal? Those things become privelleges, not rights.
I can't even count how many occupations discriminate against religion, or creed, or age....
SO if those things can be discriminated against- why can't the definition of marriage be retained based on the same principal? Because...Because of no good reason other than it doesn't matter what the majority thinks, It diesn't matter that historically, morally- marriage is defined as the unity of one man and one woman.

I am done arguing my point, because regardless of mybeliefs, the issue is going to be dissected to death. It is dividing a wonderful community.
I am good with God handling the outcome.

Pardon my typing today, I am having health issues)

prohit commented on Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 at 19:21 PM

Markari-

First, I hope you are feeling better, and you overcome your health issues. I will happily pardon typing errors :)

I agree with you on one point -- there are many inherent discriminations in our laws.

Yet, those laws do not affect a fundamental right. Further, there is a responsibility associated with each "discrimination."

For example, driving is not a fundamental right, and empirical evidence drivers become safer at an older age. There is a public policy, a social responsibility, in setting a high bar for driving age.

The same with drinking -- again, not a fundamental right and a public policy discrimination focused on safety first.

Like you said, these things are privileges.

The only privilege in marriage is the person you are married to. The actual act of marriage is a fundamental right. Our Supreme Court said so in Loving v. Virginia.

When a fundamental right is involved, a law affecting that fundamental right cannot reasonably discriminate.

Some discrimination is obviously necessary, especially when individual liberty is gravely outweighed by an inherent and explicit harm to society at-large.

For example, speech is a fundamental right. Yet, there are exceptions to discriminating against an individual's right to free speech. Specifically, if one incites a riot that threatens human life, that speech may be punished. The 1st Amendment is not a safety net in that situation.

In such limiting circumstances, an exception is made when a law "discriminates" against a fundamental right.

Thomas Payne said it best. Paraphrasing him, he basically said my right to wave my fist at you ends at your nose.

Now, Markari, I understand you may not agree that marriage is a fundamental right. Yet, that is the law of the land.

Just as you humbly request homosexuals to respect the law of this state (with the passage of Prop. 8), I reciprocate an equally humble request in asking you to respect the Supreme Court's decision in Loving.

Previous blog entries by prohit

Observations about Obama, Palin

October 23, 2008

Lately, we've heard a lot of people say Palin has more experience than Obama, that the Alaska governor accomplished more in her 20 months as state's top executive than the Illinois senator has in his entire career. But, here are three things that really irk me. Keep in mind I ...

Will NFL Fumble Hochuli's Career?

September 18, 2008

Jay Cutler stood under center and surveyed the San Diego defense. Down 38-31 and standing on the doorstep of the end zone, Cutler needed to lead the Broncos just a few more feet to tie the game and force overtime. The ball is snapped, Cutler rolls out to his right, ...

Politics Not Like We Knew It

September 08, 2008

Wow! Talk about being thrown for a loop!What we just witnessed in these past 18 hours has been truly remarkable. I went to sleep last night proud that an African-American accepted the Democratic nomination to be President. Hours later, I woke up to the news that the Republicans selected a ...

Vice-President Bill Clinton?

June 16, 2008

Bill Clinton, back in the White House. Far-fetched, you say? Impossible, I hear? Did someone say never in a million years? Hold your horses - it's "possible" ... if you take a literal interpretation of the 22nd Amendment. As with anything legal, very little is truly absolute. A law without ...

Party for Socialism and Liberation?

June 16, 2008

So, Michael Antonovich is running yet again for his County Supervisor seat, and he is opposed by Stephen Mark Hinze, a 30-year-old warehouse worker from Burbank -- and running under the ticket of Party for Socialism and Liberation. For more info about the election, read one of my recent articles ...

[View More Blogs...]