One of those things that has been bouncing around in the back of my mind for some time is the notion of moral certitude. There are people who walk around this earth with an absolute certainty that they have the right answer to what are often considered intractable problems. Now, we are all entitled to our opinions on most anything (from abortion to the designated hitter), but - at least in my humble view - one sign of a thoughtful, analytical person is the basic acknowledgement, however small, that they may not be right.
More ramblings in the extended copy.
I don't mean to say that there are never times we should feel certain. I have some first-hand experience pondering the utility of the death penalty, and have very strong feelings on that topic (I will not be party to it). Not much leeway there. No, the kind of moral certitude I am talking about is on frequent display in American politics these days. It is overwhelmingly from the right, but they probably do not have a monopoly. I have seen it everywhere from the grassroots activists to national figures. My problem is that I am unable to offer a good, working definition for this thing. (Imagine having to tell someone what to look for in hours of C-SPAN coverage - that specific of a definition.) However, in the spirit of the Justice who spoke of obscenity, I know it when I see it. So, even though I can't tell you what it is, bear with me.
The art of politics is about compromise. Everybody enters the arena with their own agenda, and the policy that emerges from government is the result of compromise across lawmakers, executives and judges. (Hear that, Republicans? The courts actually have a constitutional role here.) The problem with moral certitude is that it short circuits that ability to compromise. One or two lawmakers with this trait, and life goes on. A significant part of the majority party with this trait, and the process starts to trip up on things like partial birth abortion and feeding tubes. Political scientists have made a distinction (usually when studying party activists) between "amateurs" and "professionals." Amateurs (also called purists) are those who enter politics to win on their issue. No compromise. They generally would rather lose and maintain their moral position than win only part of what they want. Classic example would be a single issue politician who ran on an anti-abortion platform. If they were a purist, they may be unable to embrace any compromise policy that allows any abortion, even if it were to greatly reduce the number of abortions, as that would be fouling their moral stance. In contrast, a professional is the sort of person that views politics as a long-term game, where there are many, many opportunities to advance one's issues. Perhaps only half a loaf is won here, but when you win half a loaf day in and day out, pretty soon you have some serious winnings. Not perfect policy, but you would have significantly advanced policy in the direction you prefer.
So, consider Congress (esp. the House) and your state legislature. Do you see this notion of moral certitude as something that precludes effectiveness in the basic functioning of government?
Now it gets tricky. You can think of moral certitude in two ways. The first is honorable, even if hard to relate to at times. This is the person who certitude is built upon their own faith or morality. It may make them a pain in the neck, but at least it is based on principle. (A different question is whether someone should exercise such moral certainty as a representative of the people, but that is too big for me today.) The second is opportunistic and represents an exploitation of people of faith in the name of politics. This is the person who couches policy in the context of moral certitude, but really takes the stand largely for pragmatic political reasons. To borrow (and heavily distort) a phrase, me thinks you profess belief too much. Why would a politician do this? Simple. It works for a part of the current electorate. There is a segment of the electorate (not particularly represented by the readership of DailyKos) who feel threatened by some things in today's society (anything from rap to gay marriage to thongs). For centuries, faith has been a safe harbor for such people. In the last 25 years or so (think post-Moral Majority era), the blending of a newly mobilized evangelical movement with a Republican party that was receptive to using moral issues as a wedge produced an opportunity for politicians to use moral certitude as a political tool. In the process, it demeans faith while completely screwing up the governing process (the collective good is the biggest loser).
Or maybe I have it all wrong. You tell me. Anybody ever seen moral certitude on this site?