We live in a polarized political world, both locally here in Salem and nationally. This is extremely bothersome.
There's no way a city or a country can thrive when roughly half the population is viewed by the other half as worthy of disdain, because they hold views opposed to a supposedly Obviously Clearly Correct position.
Today I finished reading Stuart Firestein's book, "Failure: Why Science is So Successful." In a concluding chapter Firestein praises pluralism. Specifically value pluralism, a notion promulgated by philosopher Isaiah Berlin. He writes:
Berlin's value pluralism was at once far more radical and more constrained than either relativism or subjectivism. It was not "anything goes" but "many things go" --or better, "many chosen things go." Berlin claimed that there were values that were both good and incomparable, or, to use his better word, incommensurable.
That is, two or more things could be valuable or good, and not be measurable against each other, nor could one decide between them on a purely rational basis. Worse, they may even be in conflict. Liberty and privacy might be an example we struggle with today.
...Berlin essentially denies that there is a single correct way to do or see any human activity and asserts that sometimes the multiplicity will create rational or logical inconsistencies. Live with it. Live well with it.
Berlin's most well-known piece of writing is "The Hedgehog and the Fox." Here's how the publisher describes the essay.
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." This ancient Greek aphorism, preserved in a fragment from the poet Archilochus, describes the central thesis of Isaiah Berlin's masterly essay on Leo Tolstoy and the philosophy of history, the subject of the epilogue to War and Peace. Although there have been many interpretations of the adage, Berlin uses it to mark a fundamental distinction between human beings who are fascinated by the infinite variety of things and those who relate everything to a central, all-embracing system.
We need more foxes and fewer hedgehogs. Firestein is focused on science in his book, but he briefly talks about the problem of Hedgehogs Gone Wild in our modern politics. I totally agree with this passage.
Although Isaiah Berlin makes a compelling and impassioned case for pluralism in government and culture, I personally see little of it in modern discourse. Politics has certainly become a winner-take-all game.
The original ideas of pluralism associated with liberal democracies and legislative deliberations have all but vanished in favor of the fervor of one true path. Voters have become believers, not choosers, and alternatives are dispatched with smug righteousness.
There are still sides, and one can choose to be this or that (I would have said conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, but these terms have lost their meaning and are labels only for belonging to a particular party line that believes completely in its supremacy).
These days joining a side merely means spouting their slogans. There is no good failure, no failure with value, in politics or governing. Thus the mess.
The obvious current example of this is the effort to repeal (and maybe replace) the Affordable Care Act by the Republican Congress.
Even though "Obamacare" was approved on a party-line vote, there were many months of hearings on the Affordable Care Act, lots of back-and-forth debate, and Republicans were able to have well over a hundred amendments to the bill made part of the legislation. This isn't happening with the attempt to repeal Obamacare.
Plus, the Affordable Care Act was based on "Romneycare," the conservative approach to health care reform that was implemented successfully in Massachusetts.
So, yeah, the Affordable Care Act was a fox'y piece of legislation.
It blended disparate ideas into an attempt to improve our health care system that wasn't perfect, but sure was a heck of a lot better than the status quo. Now, it needs to be improved. But instead of doing this, Republicans basically are fixated on a "hedgehog" replacement that slashes Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars so tax breaks can be given to the wealthiest Americans.
As Firestein put it, the GOP is acting like believers, not choosers. Republican leaders are trying to legislate on the basis of ideology, not informed choices about the most workable policies.
Likewise, here in Salem the Salem River Crossing (or Third Bridge) is a highly contentious issue.
Supporters of the bridge, such as the Salem Bridge Solutions group, are focused on a simplistic "Build It Now!" cry. I readily admit that the No 3rd Bridge opponents of the Salem River Crossing are equally adamant about their position, but here's the difference:
Opponents of the Third Bridge incorporate ideas of the bridge supporters. They are much more fox-like. They recognize that rush-hour congestion on the two current bridges is a problem. They offer ways to reduce that congestion for a much lower cost than a billion-dollar (including financing costs) new bridge,
As you can surmise, I feel that liberals are, by and large, more pluralistic and fox'y than conservatives -- who tend to be more rigid and committed to a strict right-wing ideology.
The way to bridge political divides is open, honest, in-depth dialogue. Hearings. Debates. Forums. Fact-based presentations that support certain values.
When I hear people calling for more discussion with citizens, and more discussion between opposing political sides, before arriving at an important policy decision, this strikes me as a sign that a Hedgehog mentality is on a decline and the Foxes are ascending.
May we have more of this in Salem. And the nation.
Thanks Brian. This is a great analysis. You are so right about the 3rd Bridge debate. The Salem Bridge Solutions folks are classic hedgehogs — ideologues. "Build it NOW" they demand. It's the only solution. How to pay for it? They don't know. Just Build it NOW. I think many of their loyalists are totally ignorant of the plan and where it will go and how it will work. Just Build it NOW. On the other hand, the No 3rd Bridgers (I am one) don't have the silver bullet. There isn't one. But there are lots of things we could try to reduce rush hour congestion. Lots. Everything from asking the State to make a serious effort to stagger employee work hours (wouldn't cost a dime), to creating a "Park n' Walk/Bike" free parking lot for commuters in Wallace Marine Park and promoting it (wouldn't cost a dime), to asking all major employers in Salem to do like the State of Oregon does and charge for employee parking (are you listening Salem Hospital?) to discourage single occupancy commuters. Then there are the solutions that would cost money. We hope that with their new revenue, Cherriots figures out a really slick way to offer a commuter bus from West Salem (maybe for free?). By trying lot of little things (some will work and some may not) we know we can fix our traffic congestion problems and we can do it right away and not years from now. Yes, a foxy approach!
Posted by: Jim Scheppke | July 22, 2017 at 06:08 PM
Another very well thought out discussion. As to the third bridge, I think that a more simplified presentation to the public may be the most effective because, if Salem voters come to understand the simple realities of the financing, the complex environmental and social effects will become secondary concerns. The Oregon State Transportation Plan clearly spells out that the connection between Bend and the coast, via Hwy 22, is a specified goal of the legislature. The intent is to facilitate movement of traffic and to support commerce. This means that the financing should be provided by the state (actually with federal dollars). The citizens of Salem should not only not be asked to fund any third bridge, but they should probably be compensated for all of the negative effects that would come from its construction. Communicate this simple message to the public and watch as all of the Chamber's efforts to establish an unstoppable course of actions within the city government will dissolve away just as in the case of the expensive original police facility plan.
Posted by: Kurt | July 23, 2017 at 02:50 PM
Brian
I'm struck by your comment that you are somewhat hopeful hearing that some people are calling for more discussion between opposing political sides. The painful truth for many is that there IS no significant opposition in Washington. There is the appearance of opposition but in fact, one side wants unlimited power and the other wants unlimited money. The voters rejected both in favor of a housecleaning. So when you hear unexpected voices pleading for discussion, what you hear is simply the rustling sound of a mask coming off. It is just one big corrupt uniparty and I believe it is dead.
One glaring fact that is completely ignored by the voices (of the uniparty) calling for discussion is the reality that for eight years, no discussion was permitted. It was eight humiliating, vicious years of force-feeding of unrepresented Americans that caused a violent vomiting response.
I'm left wondering: why is anyone surprised?
Posted by: FJ Theurkauf | July 30, 2017 at 08:58 PM