There was a lot of talk during the election cycle about how dangerously liberal Barack Obama is. It was and is crap, but it represents a very real concern for conservative voters who want to see their conservative values continue to guide the national course. McCain supporters and conservatives in general should relax.
The one attribute that Barack Obama seems to possess that gives me the most hope as our country faces the next four years is that, unlike his predecessor, President-elect Obama seems to have an open mind. Bush supporters always revelled in his "I never change my mind or admit I'm wrong" approach. And who could blame them. When someone is doing what you want him to do, you don't want him to stop just because others (even the majority of others) disagree. However, this approach to the Presidency has great flaws in a world that seems to change with each passing day. Resoluteness of purpose may be admirable, but a staunch refusal to accomodate new facts (or any facts) and new conditions is simply bull-headed and more importantly, dangerously ineffective.
While about half the country surely disagrees with President-elect Obama's core beliefs, I think they can look forward to a Presidency marked by open-mindedness and a willingness to hear any and all points of view, to reassess information, and to willingly reconsider ill-conceived courses of action. This same trait may annoy the bejeebers out of Mr. Obama's staunch liberal supporters who might like him to shove a liberal agenda down the throats of those, in their eyes, deserving Neo-Con "hatemongers," but it will almost certainly result in a much more balanced and sane form of government.
We can only hope that Congress, the media, and the rest of the Washington insider elite will take a cue from the new President and actively build a more civil, reality-based approach to government that takes the views of all Americans and the facts into consideration before precipitously sending the country lurching forward on national and international misadventures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
While I do have some hope that Obama will move slightly towards the center now that he's in office, I can't help but note that "open-minded" is all too often a euphemism for "doesn't know what he stands for." The warm-fuzzy concept of open-mindedness, as touted by the media, Hollywood, and our public education system, leaves out any consideration for core beliefs that are not open to compromise. In fact, proponents of the concept tend to be rather disdainful of those who have such beliefs, characterizing them as backwards, uneducated or even prejudiced.
I have often noted that the Bush administration would do well to admit frankly when it was wrong, I would rather have a President who knows what he believes and operates off of that, than one who is going to decide what he believes as he goes.
In fact, proponents of the concept tend to be rather disdainful of those who have such beliefs, characterizing them as backwards, uneducated or even prejudiced.
That's probably because opponents of the concept often are those things. And by pointing that out, I suppose I've just confirmed myself as a proponent of open mindedness. And, yes, I feel superior about it. I am unashamed of that fact. Wait. Does that make me closed-minded? Hmm.
"Knows what he stands for" is all too often a euphamism for bigotry, prejudice, and a desire for things to be like they were in some mythical bygone era. And sometimes knowing what you stand for is dogmatism masquerading as faith or surety. And let's be honest: "knows what he stands for" too often doesn't actually involve "knowing." There is often "belief" or a desire to be right or have our way.
We could both play the game of sweeping aside a view by over-generalizing and building straw man arguments. Are there people who don't know what they stand for? Certainly. And I don't think any of us would choose "open-minded" as our first description of those people. Are there people who believe they know even in the face of evidence to the contrary? Also certainly.
Is the ability to change one's mind really a sign of not knowing what you stand for? No. Most often, no.
Open mindedness is the ability to listen to opposing views without fear that they threaten you. It is the ability to integrate new ideas into your way of thinking, not merely to accept any idea that comes your way, but to assess it through the crucible of your principles and determine whether it fits or not, and, if necessary, to determine whether the new information makes your principles obsolete or in need of change.
To craft an analogy, your opinion (otherwise known as "what you think you know") is like a law. It should be open to change pretty readily as you encounter and assess new information. Your principles are more like the Constitution. They should only be changed with deep and careful deliberation in the face of overwhelming evidence or need.
That said, how many core beliefs are really not open to compromise or change. Some people, for example, believe that the Bible is unerring, that every word is to be taken literally. When faced with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" they take it literally. Many people who otherwise take the Bible as the unerring word of God, however, spend a lot of time parsing those words. "Well," they say, "He doesn't mean NEVER kill. I mean I can kill someone to protect my family. Or if they threaten my liberty. Certainly, in war I can kill." What, then, becomes of the supposedly uncompromisable principle?
Much (perhaps it's more accurate to say some) of what we think is inconsistent with our principles. I've been shown that many times here. In fact, core principles can conflict with one another if we're not careful about how we construct our personal philosophies. And I would argue, most people's core philosophies are mostly accidental rather than truly sought and vetted. Actually, I wouldn't so much argue it as I suspect it is the case.
Anyway, those with the greatest fear of an Obama presidency certainly fear him not because he doesn't know what he thinks, but because they fear that he does and that what he thinks differs greatly from what they think.
David,
If you were to exchange the words "open-minded" for words like "discretion" and "judgment," I can see where you're coming from. It would appear that we are operating on two slightly different definitions of open-minded. Yours may be more accurate, in honesty, while mine is likely formed from years of being told I was not being open-minded because I refused to accept the opposition's point of view as my own.
Good judgment and discretion are certainly qualities which I would hope for in any elected official, particularly the president. We will have to wait and see if Obama exercises those qualities as president. And I hope, for the sake of our country, that he does.
mine is likely formed from years of being told I was not being open-minded because I refused to accept the opposition's point of view as my own.
Further proof, if any was needed, that what unites us is greater than what divides us. I've heard this many times myself.
It's often difficult to draw the line between what is obstinance and what is a good old fashion intellectual knuckle-buster. I like those knuckle-busters because I feel like my thinking comes out stronger on the other side whether I've learned something new, or merely had my views survive another frontal assault.
I don't think we should ever overturn our opinions without good reason.
And, by the way, I think you just demonstrated a certain degree of open-mindedness by admiting that my definition may be more accurate. I am not claiming that it is; I don't know if it is. But, the fact that you were willing to acknowledge that it might be (without deserting your own principles) was a nice open-minded moment. :)
I tend to not want to relax when some person/persons/entities tell me to do so. It makes me wonder what they are up to.
Obama's "core beliefs" - could anyone specifically tell me what those even are? Hope and Change (I feel like I should put a "tm" next to them) are not core beliefs.
I sincerely hope that he (as I hope that everyone in a position to do so) can make this country stronger, more stable, and a beacon to the world. With the words that I have heard come from his mouth, I'm just not convinced it will/can happen.
"I sincerely hope that he . . . can make this country . . . a beacon to the world. . . . I'm just not convinced it will/can happen."
I find this very interesting. His very election has had the whole world praising our democracy and lauding our ability to elect a minority as no one else can recall ever happening. Yet elsewhere, you viewed that reaction with suspicion. So, in some small way, he has already accomplished, if only for a brief moment, what you don't believe he can. And when he did so, you looked upon it with suspicion.
I'm not convinced you can be convinced.
David: I would leave Biblical references out of this argument were I you. There are too many nuances of interpretation there to make the clear and clean example you're looking for. For instance, it is my understanding that - despite the King James "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment we're all familiar with - a closer translation would be 'Do not murder' and upon that hook you can hang a thousand misunderstandings. There are contributors here who can tell you more about the translation from the original Hebraic texts, but I think you take my meaning.
I was watching the election returns come in over the 'net on election night and listening to NPR's coverage (I don't have a television) and thinking about how the nation was moving left when one of the commentators (I think it was Steven Innskeep?) commented that what was really happening is that the Democratic Party was moving right after a fashion. The new majority includes a lot of centrist and so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats. Rather akin to the Dixi-crats that so bedeviled Bill Clinton before the midterms swept a Republican majority into office during his first term, the Blue Dogs will be a force within the new majority, trying to push the agenda toward the center or even toward the right. How effectively they will manage to tame their far-left brethren remains to be seen.
Scott,
You raise a very good point. I'm aware of the "murder" / "kill" argument. In a way, though, that merely bolsters my point.
When we talk about principles that we won't compromise, most often we are referring to religious ones. Those are the principles that most people believe have already been vetted by an infallible source, not just perfect, but also all-powerful, all-knowing, and often one who punishes wrong-doing.
Yet those very principles are open to interpretation and often spawn disagreement. Nevertheless, the people who believe those things truck on as if they have absolute, incontravertable evidence that they are right -- in fact righteous.
Only the most closed-minded, dogmatic person isn't open to at least allowing for new understanding of existing knowledge if not the actual discovery of new knowledge. My point being, most people are open to at least reviewing their principles from time to time. This doesn't mean they don't know where they stand, it just means they realize that circumstances can change the ground upon which they stand.
I think.
Post a Comment