In the course of political reasoning, there is a spectrum upon which all arguments fall. At one end we have justice – what can be considered absolutely right versus absolutely wrong. On the other? Consequences, the unintended outcomes of our purposefully good and noble actions. Such is the ying and yang relationship between two schools of thought – deontology and consequentialism.
Outrage rages on both sides of the aisle.
We spoke often and at length about these diametrically opposed philosophies in business school. Is it right to donate to poor people in Africa? Bono and most others would say, “Yes, obviously.” Now consider that those same individuals are citizens of an oppressive kleptocracy. Knowing full well that most, if not all, of your donations will line the pockets of tyrants, do you still give? At what point on the spectrum do you find the risk versus reward acceptable?
This is the question we can pose to those politicians who rail away at one another from polar ends of two heated debates – (1) healthcare reform and (2) immigration reform. In the first, liberals argue that access to healthcare should be a fundamental right for all citizens while conservatives believe that the financial consequences will be too devastating for the country to bear. Conversely, with regard to immigration reform conservatives believe we have the fundamental right and obligation to send illegal aliens home while liberals fret about the unintended consequences that may result from practices like ID checks and police profiling.
I have no doubts about either party’s at-the-ready ability to explain away these inconsistencies. Says Joe the Conservative: “Healthcare has never been a right in this country whereas immigration control is the law of the land.” Lucy Liberal, in retort: “What about ‘Give us your tired, your weak, your huddled masses, yearning to be free?’ This is our legacy, as is the pursuit of life and happiness which, coincidently, our government can deliver via a stable, affordable, and accessible healthcare program.” In no way am I trying to validate or endorse either side’s argument here. Instead, my hope is to point out the peculiarity in the rationales of both. How can someone so vigorously defend the virtuous and just in one moment, consequences be damned, then turn around and hammer home the need for cautious, rational foresight at the expense of a well-intentioned mission in the next? Would it not make more sense to govern towards the middle where we consider both justice and consequences for all issues? Might this be the principled argument that can anchor a legitimate third party in this country, one that is centered between the Sean Hannitys and Rachel Maddows of the world?
We do not live in a vacuum where one polar philosophy is absolutely right and another is absolutely wrong. For our nation to solve these types of complex issues, we need to be open and honest about bridging not the divide between liberal and conservative but rather the gap between justice (constitutional and natural) and the unintended consequences of our actions. If we do not, we can all get ready for an endless stream of four-year political wars through the better part of our lives. Chris Matthews may cherish that prospect. I certainly do not.
Follow Me!