Spring Break
Understanding two kinds of peace
Dan Fitzpatrick
Issue date: 5/20/08 Section: Forum
On the issue of global warming, Al Gore famously declared that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
Nevermind that plenty of scientists disagree on whether global warming is real or not, how much might be caused by humans and what the best course of action might be; if Al Gore has declared the debate over, then anybody disagreeing at this point is clearly a partisan hack who wouldn't know truth if it was living in Gore's giant Tennessee mansion with a $1,200 electric bill.
When there really is no actual consensus about an issue, some people try to resolve the friction by railing against others as being "divisive."
For example, I have received lots of Letters to the Editor about my columns and a few of them have accused me of being divisive (despite one letter's author claiming one of his favorite quotes was "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism").
I don't write columns to tick people off - it doesn't please me to be irritating.
That being said, I also don't try to water down my opinions to avoid being divisive. I believe truth is real and absolute, and if you compromise on it then you can no longer call it truth.
This is why consensus is so overrated, especially in politics. The leading presidential candidates all claim they can reach across the political aisle and work with their rivals to get things done.
Why this is something to be celebrated, I haven't a clue. Getting along was something we were taught in kindergarten. When did "learned the lessons of elementary school" become an attractive part of someone's political platform?
We expect our elected officials to work with people they might disagree with because they are all adults. What we don't want is for those we elect to compromise on their beliefs.
If I vote for someone who claims he will protect the lives of unborn children, I don't want him to seek compromise with pro-choice officials.
If liberals vote for Obama hoping he will quickly withdraw troops from Iraq, they shouldn't want him to compromise with John McCain; that's not he claimed he would do and not why people voted for him.
Our system of federal government is set up so that only when there are many factions seeking their own interests do we have balance. If everybody was always trying to agree with each other, it would undermine the checks and balances put in place and threaten the rights of the dissenting minority.
If we are only seeking unity and consensus, then we are striving for the false peace of the grave. We are trying to kill not only man's natural tendency to disagree on things, but also any semblance of truth. The only way to achieve any kind of lasting peace is to have competing sides confront each other and let the truth win out. Settling for anything less is to settle for a counterfeit.
Dan Fitzpatrick is a senior in history. The opinions expressed in his columns do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Barometer staff. Fitzpatrick can be reached at forum@dailybarometer.com.
Nevermind that plenty of scientists disagree on whether global warming is real or not, how much might be caused by humans and what the best course of action might be; if Al Gore has declared the debate over, then anybody disagreeing at this point is clearly a partisan hack who wouldn't know truth if it was living in Gore's giant Tennessee mansion with a $1,200 electric bill.
When there really is no actual consensus about an issue, some people try to resolve the friction by railing against others as being "divisive."
For example, I have received lots of Letters to the Editor about my columns and a few of them have accused me of being divisive (despite one letter's author claiming one of his favorite quotes was "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism").
I don't write columns to tick people off - it doesn't please me to be irritating.
That being said, I also don't try to water down my opinions to avoid being divisive. I believe truth is real and absolute, and if you compromise on it then you can no longer call it truth.
This is why consensus is so overrated, especially in politics. The leading presidential candidates all claim they can reach across the political aisle and work with their rivals to get things done.
Why this is something to be celebrated, I haven't a clue. Getting along was something we were taught in kindergarten. When did "learned the lessons of elementary school" become an attractive part of someone's political platform?
We expect our elected officials to work with people they might disagree with because they are all adults. What we don't want is for those we elect to compromise on their beliefs.
If I vote for someone who claims he will protect the lives of unborn children, I don't want him to seek compromise with pro-choice officials.
If liberals vote for Obama hoping he will quickly withdraw troops from Iraq, they shouldn't want him to compromise with John McCain; that's not he claimed he would do and not why people voted for him.
Our system of federal government is set up so that only when there are many factions seeking their own interests do we have balance. If everybody was always trying to agree with each other, it would undermine the checks and balances put in place and threaten the rights of the dissenting minority.
If we are only seeking unity and consensus, then we are striving for the false peace of the grave. We are trying to kill not only man's natural tendency to disagree on things, but also any semblance of truth. The only way to achieve any kind of lasting peace is to have competing sides confront each other and let the truth win out. Settling for anything less is to settle for a counterfeit.
Dan Fitzpatrick is a senior in history. The opinions expressed in his columns do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Barometer staff. Fitzpatrick can be reached at forum@dailybarometer.com.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Be the first to comment on this story
Comments by registered users are approved by default.