The Radical Right and the Radical Left –- Twin Tornadoes Mowing Down the Middle Ground
Guy T. Sturino
October 12, 2005
The U. S. Constitution is undoubtedly the finest social contract ever written. Hopefully it will withstand the battery of tests it will receive from both fringe whirlwinds. In the meantime the voices of reflection and compromise are being drowned out by the high-pitched noise of the gale.
The loudest shouts are heard coming from those fixated on the extremes of pro-life and pro-choice. One side would outlaw all abortions regardless of circumstances, and refuse a suffering, terminally ill person the right to die at the time of their own choosing. The other side would have abortion and assisted suicide on demand. Their positions are indelibly carved in the rocks picked up by the storm of controversy and hurled against those who would dare to search for compromise.
Part of the reason for this polarized debate appears to be a common refusal to link the issue of quality of life to the issue of the existence of life. The same group that has zero tolerance for abortion also has zero tolerance for national health care and a national program to take care of those who are out of work. On the other side, those with total acceptance of abortion and assisted suicide on demand argue for tax paid national health care and welfare without a requirement for repayment through, for example, community service. Surely there is some room for compromise.
Suppose we started with a premise such as this. We accept a ban on abortion, with the single exception of the health of the mother, and, as a nation, we accept the responsibility that goes with bringing a child into the world. We accept that those who can no longer care for themselves must continue to live against their will, and the nation accepts the responsibility of caring for those in that condition. If the quality of life is given as much attention as the simple state of being able to breathe, maybe the tornadoes will begin to wind down. If we begin with any premise that links both parts of the problem, then possibly a discussion of particulars could result in a real compromise that enough people would endorse so as to provide a cultural norm that works.
There are, of course, other sources adding impetus to the destructive winds. Positions on the issues of capital punishment, gay marriage, corporate responsibility, affirmative action and workers rights are extremely contentious, and so the tornadoes continue to whirl. There may be a chance to reduce their fury before the middle ground becomes uninhabitable, but it will require a very strong conviction that compromise is the absolute best answer. In our democratic republic the only chance we have is for those who still live in the middle ground to demand that political candidates clearly express their commitment to compromise before we contribute to their campaigns or promise our vote.
We are in desperate need of leaders who will discuss issues with an unwavering intent to do the most good for the most people. We are in desperate need of leaders who will not tolerate our constitution being used, abused, twisted and torn by the fringes of society, who trying desperately to make it conform to their own narrow interpretations. Our next chance is November 2006.
Our fate is in our own hands.
The loudest shouts are heard coming from those fixated on the extremes of pro-life and pro-choice. One side would outlaw all abortions regardless of circumstances, and refuse a suffering, terminally ill person the right to die at the time of their own choosing. The other side would have abortion and assisted suicide on demand. Their positions are indelibly carved in the rocks picked up by the storm of controversy and hurled against those who would dare to search for compromise.
Part of the reason for this polarized debate appears to be a common refusal to link the issue of quality of life to the issue of the existence of life. The same group that has zero tolerance for abortion also has zero tolerance for national health care and a national program to take care of those who are out of work. On the other side, those with total acceptance of abortion and assisted suicide on demand argue for tax paid national health care and welfare without a requirement for repayment through, for example, community service. Surely there is some room for compromise.
Suppose we started with a premise such as this. We accept a ban on abortion, with the single exception of the health of the mother, and, as a nation, we accept the responsibility that goes with bringing a child into the world. We accept that those who can no longer care for themselves must continue to live against their will, and the nation accepts the responsibility of caring for those in that condition. If the quality of life is given as much attention as the simple state of being able to breathe, maybe the tornadoes will begin to wind down. If we begin with any premise that links both parts of the problem, then possibly a discussion of particulars could result in a real compromise that enough people would endorse so as to provide a cultural norm that works.
There are, of course, other sources adding impetus to the destructive winds. Positions on the issues of capital punishment, gay marriage, corporate responsibility, affirmative action and workers rights are extremely contentious, and so the tornadoes continue to whirl. There may be a chance to reduce their fury before the middle ground becomes uninhabitable, but it will require a very strong conviction that compromise is the absolute best answer. In our democratic republic the only chance we have is for those who still live in the middle ground to demand that political candidates clearly express their commitment to compromise before we contribute to their campaigns or promise our vote.
We are in desperate need of leaders who will discuss issues with an unwavering intent to do the most good for the most people. We are in desperate need of leaders who will not tolerate our constitution being used, abused, twisted and torn by the fringes of society, who trying desperately to make it conform to their own narrow interpretations. Our next chance is November 2006.
Our fate is in our own hands.
Print
Email
