“[I]n the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground.” With these words former VP Dick Cheney laid out an uncompromising justification for using any means to stop potential acts against the U.S. While the left ridiculed his statement, progressives have shown their own brand of rigidity when responding to President Obama’s recent national security decisions. (See e.g., “The president wrapped himself in the Constitution and then proceeded to violate it.” (CCR President Michael Ratner; “The Obama administration [is] adopt[ing] … the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration (ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romono)). Both Cheney and these progressive groups use a similar strategy – portray those who disagree with you in the most extreme terms and react to any variance in ideology as if it were a major betrayal.
Putting aside the merits on the arguments, both sides are showing that they are mired in the tradition left/right debate that has paralyzed American policies for decades. The major intellectual thrust of Obama’s presidency has been to transcend this standard divide. It is the idea behind his inauguration speech and The Audacity of Hope.
Obama himself seems to recognize that the real problem in the debate over national security is not finding the right policies but overcoming the rigid ideology that prevents us from agreeing upon pragmatic solutions, as the following quotes indicates:
“Now, over the last several weeks, we've seen a return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years. …
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense. …. That's the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages.”
Focusing on solutions rather than ideology does not mean that we simply have to accept Obama at his word. (I disagree with several of the President’s positions.) But when disagreeing, we must do so without resorting to absolutes, without exaggeration, and without the labels that stigmatize the other side. Instead, we must use the same careful analysis that the President uses when he lays out his arguments. In short, we have to treat each other like adults.
As President Obama said “Now let me be blunt. There are no neat or easy answers here.” Both sides of the debate would do well to remember this.
No comments:
Post a Comment