Written by Luke Lattanzi | Staff Writer
In a time of unprecedented polarization and partisan conflict, pleas for compromise and “middle-of-the-road” solutions are common, and some mistakenly begin to pursue compromise as an end in itself. Masu.
This attitude annoys me greatly, not because I am opposed to the idea of compromise, but because it is so often brought up as an end in itself. No matter how non-negotiable the two sides are, chronic compromisers (as I call them) insist that a compromise will always be found. where. Exactly where it exists has not yet been clarified beyond the abstract.
Perhaps this is because most people only have an “entry level” understanding of political debate. In the age of 280 characters, political discussions are increasingly occurring online, often leaving no room to explain the cultural and philosophical underpinnings of what are considered surface-level topics in contemporary American political discourse. .
We often have little awareness that our “political” polarization is actually the result of deeper issues. cultural In polarization, fundamental, fundamental preconceptions about human nature and how one should live among others are called into question. Our chronic compromisers (bless their hearts) are unaware of this. Instead, they preach tired platitudes about the virtues of compromise, how our nation’s founders compromised, and how we too should compromise because of the “American experiment” or something. appeals to the cliché. However, as a compromise, virtue It ultimately depends on what you are actually infringing upon and whether the two sides can actually reconcile within a broader political and cultural framework.
Unfortunately, one of the largest samples of chronic infringer content I ever saw was actually in this newspaper’s opinion section. Each semester, The Lariat publishes a variety of columns on themes of compromise and rejection of tribalism, all with noble intentions. But what happens when these noble intentions are made without proper consideration of the actual depth of the divisions?
A prime example, in particular, can be found in a column published last semester, in which the author brought up the transgender discussion to encourage compromise and “careful conversation.” .
“First, by limiting the answer to ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ you force people to choose a side, limiting their ability to debate and form compromises. ” writes the author. “We keep things divided without educating others about what they think, which further polarizes our society.”
For context, the author was commenting on a live poll conducted on campus by the student organization Network of Enlightened Women. The poll was conducted in response to an advertisement for an on-campus event featuring Riley Gaines, an NCAA Division I swimmer who lost to transgender swimmer Leah Thomas in the women’s swimming championships, in response to an advertisement for a biological male I asked if I could compete in women’s sports.
The argument in this article is that reducing the transgender debate to a “yes” or “no” question only exacerbates the polarization caused by the debate. But the problem with this argument is that the transgender debate is literally a “yes” or “no” question.
There are two main camps at the center of the transgender debate. One camp holds that gender is a social construct completely separate from biological sex, dependent on the subjective experience of the individual, and that people therefore move between the two intentionally and fluidly. I believe that we can move towards this goal. Many in this camp reject the gender binary completely and argue that there are more than two genders. The other camp is quite the opposite: that gender and sex are not distinct, and deny the immutability (or objectivity) of certain biological and physiological characteristics, no matter how ideologically exalted they may be. I believe it is not possible.
The reason this particular conflict is so vicious and polarizing is not just because of politics. We are no longer simply fighting over how high or low the corporate tax rate should be, or how much money we should spend on the military. Properly understood, the transgender debate presupposes a more fundamental debate about human nature. Human beings are either bound by mutually reinforcing objective constants of nature, such as biological and physiological characteristics, or they are not. There is simply no way to logically reconcile or “compromise” his two completely different philosophical positions on human nature. No matter which side you are on in this debate, one will always win. It has not yet been decided who will emerge victorious over the other.
We select our opinion section writers and ask them, “So how should we approach these kinds of controversial questions?” We need to be able to create safe spaces for these discussions. It means acknowledging the validity of everyone’s experiences, recognizing that political philosophy does not determine our worth as human beings, and using respectful rhetoric. ”
Really? everyone’s Is experience valid? If you can’t challenge the validity of a particular position or experience, what’s the point of arguing at all? There’s nothing wrong with listening to someone and having a respectful conversation. And yes, your political philosophy certainly doesn’t determine your intrinsic value as a human being, but it does reveal a lot about how you view the world, and those views are valid. very likely to be invalid.
This does not mean that we should dislike the idea and spirit of compromise. In fact, I believe there are a number of political debates, particularly policy debates, that would benefit greatly from stronger cooperation efforts. Policy debates about health care, social safety nets, and taxes come to mind. But when you start getting into more fundamental aspects of political and cultural life, such as whether gender and sex exist in objective reality, efforts to find a middle ground seem intellectually dishonest and logically It will be incorrect. Because there simply isn’t a middle ground. .