You hear it all the time in the media these days. We are told that both sides of the political debate contain "extremists" that muddy the political waters for everyone. If only a political compromise could be forged, then we could truly "get things done" in the US. Not only does this logic undermine the basic premise of democracy itself - that ideally it should be slow, deliberatative, and agonistic if not agonizing - but it also attempts to dismantle politics as a process which is founded on debate and vigorous disagreement. Some readers would not be wrong to pinpoint Obama's emphasis on "compromise" as a contributing factor to this jargon. Whether Obama actually believes in this idea - which sadly seems to be the case, especially after the national debt debacle - or employs it as a strategic and powerful part of his political weaponry remains to be seen. Increasingly, the idea of compromise is changing from an effective tool of political agonism to an ideal that is nostalgically hoped for, and often alluded to in a collective memory (which never existed) when political ideologies put aside their differences and made a pact for the common good.
The idea of "compromise" is strengthened by another oft-repeated idea which is directly tied to it. This is the belief that political ideologies are equally valid and therefore deserving of the same praise and respect regardless of what ridiculous, pompous, insane, or vile ideas they spew forth. Take a recent example of this rhetorical move from The Chronicle of Higher Education:
"Those who lean left politically might reflexively focus on a rising tide of libertarian individualism, market fundamentalism, and the celebration of the "virtue of selfishness" by Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and their think-tank popularizers. Those who lean right might blame other forms of individualism, including feminism, social liberalism, and rights-based social movements since the 1960s."
So here it is. Innocuously tossed off in an article whose main purpose is to raise awareness of the increasing loss of empathy among youths, we get an equivocation that makes the head spin. This rhetorical move starts by pretending that there are only two political trajectories in the country. Then, after setting up this false dichotomy, the clever rhetorician usually suggests - in the interest of "fairness," of course - that both leanings are equally flawed or equally viable, depending on the argument. This is the height of relativism and irresponsible writing. Basically, the authors utilize an oversimplified version of an idea wrongly attributed to Hegel: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. We are supposed to take from this that because both sides could make a critique of the other, therefore both sides cancel one another out, resulting in the "truth" that if only both sides could be a little less different, a little more willing to "compromise," much could be accomplished in the world. In reality, the two sides are drastically unequal, and their consequences incredibly different.
Let's delve more into the above quote to clarify what is at stake in the two political positions as they apply, in this case, to empathy. On one hand, when it comes to the waning problem of empathy, there is a clearly identifiable form of self-righteous selfishness that is endlessly and shamelessly promoted on the right, and it is not a coincidence that an especially rabid form of this ideology came into the mainstream around the time of the Reagan/Thatcher revolution in the late 70's and early 80's - the very same time that empathy among the young began to decline. On the milquetoast left, the tentative suggestion that some people might be different than others - but nevertheless deserving of the same rights - necessitates that people try to put themselves into the shoes of others. Here we end up with two different kinds of individualism - the individualism which sees the self as independent of society, and a form of individualism which attempts to incorporate subjects on the margins as deserving of the same rights and privileges of the majority. In other words these perspectives are in no way equal, despite the authors' attempt to synthesize them. This simplistic equivoation is not qualified or explained in any way. In fact it is presented as normal, part of a standard journalistic practice. It would be interesting to hear from the authors or their imaginary interlocutor on the right how "feminism, social liberalism and rights-based social movements" contributed to a lack of empathy among youths. Of course one of the keys to this crass Hegelianism is that delving too deeply into any specifics begins to create shades of nuance, which threatens the ultimate assumption that at their core, both ideologies are equally probable candidates for causing or solving any number of problems. More thoughtful writing should be expected of a purportedly academic news source, but this kind of uncritical equivocation is all too often repeated ad nauseum within American political discourse in the media today, creating a zeitgeist which only deepens our delusions about the political.
C. Wesley
