The charge is often hurled at Democrats that they have no firm ideas to offer to the American public. And for a party that prides itself on its open-mindedness, its unwillingness to maintain loyalty to an opinion that has lost its connection to observable fact, the insult carries a natural sting. I, for one, have not had the time to think as hard about a great many things to be sure enough to announce my opinion on them to the newspapers.
The current strain of Republicanism suffers from no such delicacy. They look at the difficulty of being completely correct, and conclude that life is too short to be concerned about that difficulty, and that it is God's business, anyway, to worry about ultimate rights or wrongs. And they content themselves with being loud.
And with their putative opponents' unwillingness to be as sure at comparable decibel levels, they convince themselves they must be correct, after all.
But what gets them into trouble is
casuistry, which describes what happens when the things one is absolutely sure of at full volume come into conflict with other such things, or with the hard stony edge of reality.
Here are some sturdy contemporary Republican cloth truths:
Democracy is great! We believe 100% in democracy! (Except when it gives us Hamas in Palestine, or Iranian-leaning Shia governments in Iraq, or too many voters at polling places in Florida. Then it has to be slapped around a little, shown its place. And order is then better than democracy.]
Liberty is great! We are all about liberty! (Unless it conflicts with safety. Unless it is used to express viewpoints that call into question what we might be doing. And then propriety and compliance with authority are much better.]
Life is sacred! We so revere all human life! (Death penalty?) Okay, innocent life. (Collateral damage?) Okay, American innocent life. (Guantanamo? New Orleans? Marianas forced abortions?) Right, American, innocent, Christian, white life)
So how, a good, open-minded liberal might ask, is it possible to advance some of one's own moral absolutes without getting similarly hoist with one's own petard?
First, you have to actually believe in them. This has been a problem for a lot of Republicans, lately.
Then, you have to choose principles, not operational goals. Because there is always slop in goals, always wiggle room into which the imp of contradiction can work his busy fingers. And choose them without regard to time or custom. Not easy, but worth some work.
Here are mine, and they have served me well, so far.
Justice--the kind that treats each individual without respect to the happenstances of birth--neither intelligence, nor race, nor wealth, nor gender, nor...well, you can finish the list.
Kant's Categorical Imperative--to act in every instance as though the action would become a universal rule for everyone, everywhere, in a similar position. Why don't you torture? Because then it's okay for everyone else to. Why don't you unilaterally invade sovereign countries, or bomb their people in hopes of hitting the odd terrorist? Because then you can't squawk when someone shoots a Scud into the apartment building where Henry Kissinger is living.
Not everything is a thing--that any definition or description or explanation regarding living creatures includes organism plus environment. Neither is separable from the other, and if you try, pathology is certain to follow. Sometimes the relationship between things carries more real effect than the things. You are not a brother or a father or a mother alone. It is not a quality of you, but of a relationship you have with another. What would make you think your American-ness resides in you in any other way?