By Tim Baldwin
The late philosopher, George Hegel, viewed human nature as the process of synthesis, where two clashing ideas form a new idea. Hegel theorized that law and constitutions are subject to this process and can never sit still. Hegel rejected the Enlightenment philosophy, on which the American constitutions were based, that emphasized the basic laws of human nature: “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Hegel’s work was the seed of communism, and the Enlightenment philosophy was the seed of republicanism.
So, how much synthesis can a society endure whose constitution is designed to guarantee a republican form of government before changing that constitution to one that is communistic in nature? To me, the undercurrent of this question creates much of today’s conflicts in politics. The Hegelians always attempt to create synthesis that moves the constitution from republican to communistic in nature. Those who see this effort resist it ardently.
This does not mean, however, that every political battle involves the “heart and soul” of our constitutions. There is room for debate and sometimes compromises on a host of issues, which leave our constitution intact. Unfortunately, many politicians don’t know this skill well and resort to name-calling strategies to defeat their opponents. Politics is a science; we desperately need better scientists in this field.
By Joe Carbonari
As a society we have become too quick to criticize and too slow to cooperate. A couple driving in a strange city may disagree about the route to follow, but at some point one has to drive and the other to navigate. They must pick a direction to try and then give that direction a chance. Changes, even reversals in direction may come up, but starting out cooperatively, together, is required.
The same is true in politics. We must cooperate. Partisan, ideologically based plans are unlikely to work. We are a mixed and changing society. We need a mix of viewpoints and ideas in the political process, and we need more tolerance and less infighting and one-upmanship. Leadership needs to want forward movement enough to maintain its sense of perspective – to focus on the end goal. We all need to cooperate with those with whom we disagree, on those things on which we can agree, and to give our compromises, reservations notwithstanding, a sabotage-free chance of success.
If our political gears do not better mesh, we, as a society will not flourish. The friction we engender must be overcome by our common desire to move forward. We cannot continue to allow our infighting to leave us seemingly incompetent, incapable; dysfunctional. It need not be.
Get informed. Get involved. And vote. Indifference and inaction leave a vacuum. We must fill it.