The Role of Government - And Acrimony in Public Discourse

A few days ago, I was exchanging comments on a forum. In thinking about some of them regarding the role of government, and some of the comments I’ve made to others recently about the lack of civil discourse between those with opposing political views, I have an idea forming that I really need to think through – but I’m laying it out here while I think about it. Maybe some others might actually give it some thought.

I said at the time “The federal government should be involved in ONLY those areas that cannot be handled well at a more local level – like national defense and securing our borders. And in fact, that is essentially what the 10th amendment states. State government should, in turn, be involved in those areas that cannot be handled well at the county or city level, etc.” What I didn’t go on to say was that government at ANY level should be involved in only those areas that simply cannot be handled without government intervention.

In more than one recent conversation, I have bemoaned the lack of civil discourse between Republicans and Democrats. Usually, I’ve been referring to our elected officials. But the fact is, the lack of civility goes all the way down to We The People in our discussions among ourselves.

I’ve often wondered what caused the change from the “old days” when there was a general condition of civility and respect between people of differing political views, and I think I have come up with at least a partial answer. For me, that beginning of an answer arose from thinking about the legitimate role of government and human nature.

Another part of my comments: “I want a VERY limited government. The appropriate legislative body passing only the laws that are truly necessary for the proper functioning of society at that level. If that were the case, I am confident that almost all of the laws on the books at every level would be eliminated. I would be very happy with that state of affairs. But I am confident that the nature of most human beings – the desire to impose our will on others – would soon put them back.”

Therein, I think, lies at least the origins of the problem – “the desire to impose our will on others.” Once upon a time, that was a minimal problem because government’s intrusion into our “personal” lives was minimal. Federal government dealt with the nation’s military, with relations with other countries, and with raising the funds needed to handle the (at that time) minimal business of government.

Today, our government intrudes into more and more of the “personal” areas of our lives. Without spending even a moment in thought on the subject, medical care and abortion come immediately to my mind. There are MANY others. On some of these issues, there is simply no room for compromise.

A case in point: Abortion. I believe that a human being is a human being from the moment of conception. Actually, I KNOW that. All scientific information and logic makes it abundantly clear. And I know that killing a human being is morally and legally wrong. Before I go on, I want to make it clear that I am not moved to anger at women who undergo abortions, my heart breaks for them. Someone else believes it is appropriate to abort the birth of a child at some point during the term of pregnancy. Some even believe it is appropriate even up to time when the mother is in the process of giving birth. They either disagree about the time when we acquire our “humanness” or find it expedient to disregard the issue, giving abortion some sort of special case status on the issue of taking a human life. Taking or arguing a stand on any of these points of view isn’t what this is about. Acknowledging that they exist is the point.

There is simply no middle ground, no point where a compromise can be struck, between those views. With my beliefs, even the “morning after” pill or IUD take the life of fertilized egg – a human being in their early hours of existence. That being the case, I’m certainly not willing to compromise on the point in a pregnancy when an abortion can appropriately be done. You don’t have to agree with me. I hope you do, but if you don’t you just have to realize that it is the unshakable belief of millions of people in this country. Realizing it might at least help you understand why “the other side” is so intractable on the issue.

My first thought was to look at the attitude that abortion should not be illegal. Then abortion would be a matter between the mother and her conscience. Of course, I immediately jumped to the idea that if abortion were to be no longer illegal, it should also no longer be specifically legal. That is, the law should be totally silent on the issue of abortion – meaning, among other things, that government would in no way pay for abortions. But abortion is, among other things, a medical procedure. That means that if the government is involved in medical care (which it certainly is), it must define procedures that will be paid for and circumstances under which they will be covered. Which, in turn, means that the government cannot be silent on abortion if it is involved in medical care.

Without trying to sort out and analyze the whole can of worms that is government involvement in medical care (this is, after all, a blog entry – not a lengthy treatise bound for publication), I realize that there certainly are within that particular area of government activity many areas equally unavailable for compromise as abortion. One that immediately to mind is at the other end of life - euthenasia. And that is as far as I'll go on that one, or just those two points WILL make this blog post a book.

So what can we do when government enters an area of our lives where there are multiple points of view that simply don’t lend themselves to compromise? We fight over them endlessly, because each side is convinced of its rectitude and convinced that this is a MORAL issue over which there is no room for any compromise. Each side feels the need to impose its will on the other, and because it is a moral stand, the disagreement can (and usually does) become acrimonious.

There are those who argue that government has no business trying to “legislate morality.” I would respond that virtually all laws are attempts to “legislate morality.” It only becomes an issue when there is disagreement on the appropriate moral standard to be enacted into law.

So what answer have I come to? What formula have I come up with that will banish the uncivil discourse that is the norm today? Absolutely nothing. Okay, maybe not ABSOLUTELY nothing. There is an answer, but I believe it takes us back to any earlier stage in our national psyche. The answer is to always endeavor to disagree without being disagreeable, but that is far removed from the mindset of most Americans today. The norm today seems to be to actually seek to be disagreeable in the pursuit of our desires. The more thought I give to it, the more hopeless it appears. I haven’t given up. I will continue to think about it. I will pray about it. But I will do so with a prevailing premonition of failure clouding my deliberations.