The Ends and The Means (or why politics are so polarized)

Pidgin languages are forms of communication that have popped up around the world throughout much of history as ways for traders, for example, to talk to people in new markets who speak a different language. Two groups of people want to interact, but cannot communicate with a shared language, so a new language is created as a foundation to communication.

I would argue that for real political debates to occur, there has to be a shared philosophical foundation. I wish I were smart enough to come up with a philosophy everyone can agree with.

The problem is I'm pretty set in mine, and I think other people are as well.

I think I can basically boil all of my political beliefs into 5 words: "The Ends ARE The Means." I think this is true for a lot of progressives. This makes it very easy to talk to other progressives and reinforce our entrenched beliefs.

But can I ever have a meaningful conversation with people even slightly more Machiavellian than I?

These ideas just struck me this morning, and it's pretty empirical so far. If you are still interested, I'll track what examples I've thought up as of yet. Please leave comments with more examples or critiques.

++++++

#ECONOMY: Last night I was watching Michael J. Fox's TV special about optimism, and he visited Bhutan. He reminded me that Bhutan measures something other than GNP (gross national product), the major way economists measure economic progress, they measure GNH (gross national HAPPINESS). And guess what, they're happy and poor!

This is the crux of my rub with our economy. Any economist will tell you that The Ends of any economy is to distribute resources. But most economists will tell you (at least in America) that The Means to do so is through some sort of libertarian Capitalist system. The same system where the fewer regulations there are, the more concentrated the resources are. The system where the fat cats get fatter and more powerful, and the rest of us have to pay for the bailouts.

If we truly want to distribute resources and have happiness in our society, we must align The Means with things like public health care, localized and healthy agriculture, educational opportunities for all, community involvement, social networking (face-to-face), a cleaner planet, wild/natural/quiet experiences in our local ecosystems, and so on. "Only a rat can win a rat race."-- Michael Franti?

How can I even discuss the economy with someone bent on The Ends being anything but the Means?

#TORTURE: I believe that a country whose President does legal gymnastics to allow torture, and is not held accountable, is a country without a serious rule of law or moral high ground. I believe that a country that allowed its government to round up thousands of people without habeas corpus has lost its way.

(Remember when the government put bin Laden's chauffeur on trial (we must assume this was their best case)? It took place in a military tribunal where the regular rules of court that protect the defendant were suspended. They couldn't even get a conviction of terrorism. All they convicted him of was.... being bin Laden's driver.)

Is there any way for me to discuss torture with someone who has fantasies of Jack Bauer somewhere out there in the world saving millions of lives through torture? Is there a way for our nation's leaders who may agree with me to hold the Bush Administration accountable without it turning into a partisan mess by those who believe The Ends justify The Means? Those who defend torture would turn The Justice Department into a caricature of partisanship if serious investigations and cases were pursued, even though that is The Justice Dep'ts function.

#WAR: I believe that countries who drop bombs and impose sanctions around the world will never achieve peace. To take out the evil dictator Hussein, we deliberately caused the deaths of 500,000 children (Medeleine Albright says it was "worth it") through sanctions, then started "shocking and aweing" more civilians in 2003. The vast majority of people fighting American soldiers in Iraq are not Iranian, or Saudis, or Syrians, or Afghanis... they are Iraqis.

To remove the Taliban, we sealed the borders of Afghanistan to starve its people, then we bombed their civilians and let bin Laden escape to Pakistan. Then we gave political power and weapons to the Northern Alliance, who proceeded to murder and pillage their fellow citizens like they were doing before the Taliban. Now the Taliban is stronger than ever. Today, we have members of our military dropping bombs on schools in Afghanistan from American soil through predator drones. This isn't an evil plot by the military, they just don't know what they are bombing until the Afghans find the corpses. "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb the world to peace."--Michael Franti

Can we have a serious foreign policy debate in this country when the other side thinks the only way to peace is through bombs?

#FUNDRAISING: I believe in campaign finance reform that should include free media access for those running for office. I don't think politicians can take money from Pfizer and Kaiser as The Means to gaining office, without The Ends being a failed health care system.

#MEDIA: I don't think that we as a nation can hand over our public airwaves and TV stations to GE and Disney without the public airwaves and TV stations becoming mouthpieces for private interests. For NBC to promote synergy, they must promote war in order to help GE's weapons divisions.

#NATURAL RESOURCES: Our current Means for supporting our consumer economy are creating Ends of a destroyed planet where every single ecosystem on the planet is failing. If The Means are to spew toxic gasses and chemicals into our shared air and water, then The Ends will be an unhospitable planet for most creatures.

+++++++

I could probably go on and on. These ideas are played out every day on the 24 hour noise channels where bobble heads get paid millions to scream at people who disagree with them. This is why when anyone who I think still has their sanity visits Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity or Lou Dobbs, I cheer the guest, and those who disagree cheer the host. When a Machiavellian guest visits Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, I boo and hiss. It's a little old.

I know I could get really pessimistic and try to forget about politics and their implications on the other 6.5+ billion people on the planet. But I know that things change through time. I know that the light of truth may one day shine on torture, war, planet destruction, and crony/disaster capitalism. I know that We the People got us out of Vietnam. I know that We the People got The New Deal and banking regulations. I know that average people in places like Brazil and Ecuador and Bolivia are making progress. I know that when people are educated and shown pictures of the horrors of Palestine, they question the Israeli government. Times change.

In the mean time, is there a Pidgin philosophy we can all agree on as a starting point? Or does each side have to fight for philosophical converts? Can we really just use different words as many progressive linguists have suggested? Do words mask underlying philosophical differences?