<$BlogRSDUrl$>                                                                                                                                                                   
The Third Estate
What Is The Third Estate?
 Everything
What Has It Been Until Now In The Political Order?
Nothing
What Does It Want To Be?
Something

What To Do?

Thursday, January 26, 2006
Sometimes it's very hard to be a liberal Democrat.

Last night I was chairing a meeting of a Democratic political club. It's a volunteer organization with a long and honorable tradition and I'm proud to be a member. At the beginning of the meeting a man stood up and started talking, disrupting the entire meeting. I asked him to wait (he didn't), I ruled him out of order (he kept talking), and then I lost my temper and tried to shout him down (whoops).

It was a mistake, I know, but I was determined that we wasn't going to hijack the meeting. His comments were rude and insulting. Par for the course, really. He never evinces the slightest respect for others, impugning their motives and integrity at will. Finally the only person he listens to stepped in and got him to wait until the end of the meeting, when I let him rant as long as he liked. His speech included a lot of nasty comments about me, but I let him talk - because Democrats are supposed to let people speak their piece even if they don't like what they're hearing. A lot of people were alienated by the whole thing, and I worry that some of our new members won't be returning. The man did enormous damage to the organization, but I see no way to prevent him from doing so.

This is a personal story about how I bungled a meeting, but it's a story about the single most challenging thing about being a liberal. We are committed to openness and free discussion, but the willingness of others to abuse that belief frequently turns us into a punching bag. We are hesitant to shut down others but they are quick to use our own rules and convictions against us. This problem is also one of the great unanswered dilemmas in democratic theory. How does a democracy dedicated to liberty and equality handle a confrontation with those who don't, especially when the people challenging those beliefs are its own citizens? Just look at how Hamas, which has no commitment to democracy, has used democratic elections in Palestine to win power. What do you want to guess that this is the last election we'll see?

I have no answer to this dilemma. If we oppress or ignore those who challenge our procedures, then we are engaging in precisely the kind of authoritarianism we abhor. On the other hand, if we permit others to use our procedures and beliefs against us, then we are helping our enemies destroy us.

It's a conundrum for which I have no answer. And neither does anyone else, as far as I know. When I asked others after the meeting what I should have done, they said I should have punched him or used a 2 x 4. They weren't serious. I think. The sad fact is that open discussion is reliant on an ethic of mutual respect. If the membership - whether they be of a political club or a country - doesn't adhere to those norms, even if only one person doesn't, then the entire project collapses. Democracies are much more fragile than we realize. What I am afraid of is when Americans finally do recognize this reality, it will be far too late.
Posted by Arbitrista @ 8:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home

:: permalink