|
{1} "Reasoning, tested by doubt, is argumentation." – David Zarefsky, Ph.D.
It was a cold January in the rural, upstate New York area where I live. After two falls, and a minor "fender-bender" on the sheet of ice that covers our driveway, I found myself limited to inhabiting a small space in the first floor of our house. Although life went on at its normal pace for the rest of the family, I found myself in a space that didn’t bring out the best in my personality.
One afternoon, my oldest son approached me with a bag in hand and a smirk on his face. "You are at a crossroads, Old Man. These are your two choices. It’s entirely up to you. I refuse to take responsibility for the decision you make," he said as he handed me the bag.
I briefly fought the bitter disappointment that came with the realization that he did not intend to place the bag over my head, and put the family out of my misery. Opening the bag, I found that he had selfishly decided to give me two new books instead. The pain that resulted from the stark recognition that I had utterly failed as a parent became worse when I saw the two books: Howard Zinn’s "A Power Governments Cannot Suppress," and Ann Coulter’s "Guilty."
{2} "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -- Woody Allen
It’s been a cold eight years under the oppressive, anti-democratic, "leadership" of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. It is as if an ice has formed over the path laid out by our Constitution. At times, we fallen slipped and fallen, and injuries have resulted. It will require an investment of time and energy to repair even the "minor" bent fenders. And it will be costly.
We are at a crossroads. We are each responsible for the choices that we, as individuals, make. It involves what direction we move in as a nation, which will be determined – in large part – by what approach we take as individuals.
This includes if we invest our energies in the route that Howard Zinn advocates, which is a rational form of argumentation, which has the potential to unify; the other route is that exemplified by Ann Coulter, which appeals to the hatreds and fearful arguing, that lead only to divisions which cause social decay.
{3} "What you think, you become." – Gandhi
When we look at the historic example of the "Founding Fathers," there are situations that demonstrate the positive potential of argumentation, versus the negative potential of mere arguing.
When we think of the letters between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, we know that there were times when they disagreed. For example, after the Constitutional Convention, Madison was sure that their effort was bound to become a dismal failure. Jefferson disagreed. Now, neither of these men were in any sense "perfect": both had a rather limited view of who exactly was entitled to benefit from democracy. Yet in their disagreement on the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson was moved to encourage Madison to support what has become known as The Bill of Rights.
On the other hand, when Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr’s disagreements were "settled" on the rocky ledge along the Hudson River near Weehawken, New Jersey in July of 1804, the result was of less benefit to the ideals of democracy.
We have the option of attempting to use the resources available to engage in everything from "local" discussions with those around us, to "national" debates on the issues that confront us today. Again, as Professor Zarefsky teaches at Northwestern University, rational thought, tested by doubt, opens those doors which are "essential for the free, self-governing citizens of a democracy." This is true not only when this is hard, but is most important when it is at its most difficult.
The failure to do so not only insures further damage to our Constitutional democracy, but it creates an atmosphere where sick individuals such as Ann Coulter are able to publish books and appear on television.
{4} "What John F. Kennedy left us was most of all an attitude. To put it in the simplest terms, he looked ahead. He knew no more than anyone else what the future was going to be like, but he did know that that was where we ought to be looking. ….It was time for us to take that attitude, because we thought we were growing old. ….The world was moving faster than ever before and we were beginning to regret that it was moving at all because we were afraid where it might take us. ….President Kennedy came to symbolize that moment of change, not because he caused it but because he fitted into it; not because of what he did but simply because of what he did. He might almost have been speaking from Shakespeare’s text, telling us that being ready is what really matters – being ready to meet any challenge, to assume any responsibility, to lose fear for ourselves in an abiding concern for the common good." – American Heritage; Four Days; 1964
Like Jefferson and Madison, President Kennedy was not perfect. Reasonable people can and do still debate the specifics of a number of his policies, and the actions he intended to pursue in the future. In that sense, he has become a figure that plays a significant role in argumentation. It was his positive outlook, identified in the above quote, that inspired the deep affection and hopes for the future in a large number of Americans.
Today we have a similar President, Barack Obama, who inspires a large segment of the population in a similar way. Like Kennedy, Obama is not perfect. We can and should – and, indeed, must – have serious discussions and debates on his policies, the people he surrounds himself with, and the other actions that he takes.
Yet the President alone can, at very best, only do so much good; I am convinced that the leader of the largely corporate government we have today can, in fact, do far more harm than good. Hence, the actual changes caused by George W. Bush are of such significance today, and for some time in the future.
More good can be accomplished by individuals across the country who unite, who not only work towards the common good, but who refuse to participate with the destructive forces that have been unleashed in this country.
{5} "Revolutionary change does not come as one cataclysmic moment (beware of such moments!) but as an endless succession of surprises, moving zigzag toward a more decent society. We don’t have to engage in grand, heroic actions to participate in the process of change. Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can quietly become a power no government can suppress, a power that can transform the world.
"Even when we don’t ‘win,’ there is fun and fulfillment in the fact that we have been involved, with other good people, in something worthwhile. We need hope. An optimist isn’t necessarily a blithe, slightly sappy whistler in the dark of our time. To be hopeful in bad times is not being foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of competition and cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness.
"What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places –and there are so many – where people have behaved magnificently, it energizes us to act, and raises at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory." – Howard Zinn
It’s our choice.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
