Pragmatic Idealism

I find it morally difficult to brand myself as a member of any political party. I am a pragmatic idealist.

Ideally, the most successful government would be a communal, socialist system that granted equality in rights and property. The security of these rights must be governed by a strict moral law, which would require an individual and collective good will. Any breach of the law would be penalized through a unanimously drafted justice system. This type of Zionistic or utopian society has been attempted many times throughout history—two examples: Salem (Jerusalem) and Rio de Janeiro. These two became perhaps the two most violent cities in the world. It is evident that as long as vice, pride, or envy exists, such equality cannot be maintained without creating despotic oppression that would undermine the liberties it meant to protect. Although we should not cease to strive for perfection, this ideal cannot be realized under the leadership of mortal men.

My pragmatic side makes me, in practice, a classical liberal (not to be confused with today’s Democratic liberals).

Government should protect basic liberties and provide for the common defense, but should leave most else to the people to decide. A submissive or over-tolerant attitude does not, however, jive with classical liberalism when it encroaches upon the foundation of the rights liberalism is meant to protect. We must maintain a careful balance in our “live and let live” philosophy.

A flower may not care that weeds are spreading in the distance until they surround and choke it. Other weeds, granted, are harmless as they either do not spread or do not exhaust the nutrients needed by the flower. Some appear to be weeds from the distance, but are simply a different type of flower. Others appear to be harmless flowers, but are dangerously disguised weeds.

In our world, we have to work with the hand we are dealt. The reality is that vice, pride, and envy do exist and threaten our rights. We must be a nation of morals, not complacency if we wish to be truly liberal. Anyone who says that government should not legislate morality needs to understand that all legislation is moral. It all deals with deciding what is right for us collectively and individually. It deals with granting rights, defining rights, and controlling rights. Which rights we decide to protect and promote define our country’s moral strength.

When we mercilessly prosecute members of our national defense for alleged torture yet allow repeated child rapists to walk free after three months in prison, we have acquired a warped sense of how we should legislate morality. We prohibit the use of public property to celebrate religious traditions, yet we do nothing to prevent public tax money from being used to pay for abortions. As the nation leans toward becoming a welfare state, it leans away from being a liberal nation because it allows a small number of people to decide for the rest what liberties will be valued as basic civil rights.

I have actively supported local and national campaigns for both Democrat and Republican candidates. It is unhealthy for a state, a denomination, or an individual to be blindly loyal to a single political party. It isn’t necessary to be part of or defend the Republican Party just because of your religious affiliation, or even just because you tend to have socially or fiscally conservative views. Likewise, if you find yourself at odds with the Republican Party because they ignore important issues that deal with human suffering or inequality, that doesn’t automatically make you a Democrat and require you to only vote for Democrats.

There are more than two sides to every issue. There are more than two issues to each side. There are more than two possible solutions for any given problem. Think for yourself and examine each issue and how it will impact our country’s moral strength. Support an ideal and a practical solution, not a party or a man waving a populist banner of utopia.