Passionately Moderate

- by J.M.

"Pick a side!"

So we've been told by politicians, pundits, editorialists, and others who seek our allegiance by stripping complex issues of all nuance in order to shove them into a simplistic "us vs. them" formula. Republicans have shunned McCain because he dared to challenge the party-line on tax-cuts for the wealthy, among other excesses. (Need I point out here that there is currently a war that is contributing to the national debt at a rate of approximately $ 275 million to $ 300 million per day? No? Okay, then, let's move on.) NOW-New York's president Marcia Pappas recently criticized Sen. Edward Kennedy of betraying women with his endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama. (Aside from the obvious fact that both Sens. Clinton and Obama represent a radical departure from the typical white male candidate - and who's to say that combating sexism is more or less important than combating racism - I didn't realize that Sen. Kennedy had permanently alleged his allegiance to Sen. Clinton as the representative of women everywhere. My mistake . . . I guess.) The Bush administration has repeatedly (and outrageously) claimed that anyone who disagrees with its policies is an agent of terror. President Bush has literally stated, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" - a sentiment echoed by Mitt Romney last week as he withdrew from the race, implying that a vote for the democrats would be a surrender to terror.

I understand the pragmatism inherent in the "if you're not with us, you're against it" attitude. For one thing, it gets results. Especially in times of crisis, people respond to these ultimatums, fearing that the worst possible outcome is a probable alternative to that proposed by a trusted leader (whether or not said leader has actually earned that trust, and whether or not available intelligence, statistics, etc. actually support that conclusion). Moreover, it's simple: it reduces complicated issues that require extensive research (or, at the very least, a lengthy article) to comprehend into an easy-to-understand choice between right and wrong. The human brain is, in fact, predisposed to categorize information into readily accessed prototypes and heuristics. (See, e.g., David G. Myers, Psychology, 6th ed. Worth Publishers, pp. 358-64, 2001). The problem, of course, is that despite the appeal and ease of such an approach, the most pressing issues facing the U.S. in the coming years - national security, religious extremism, the economy, education, etc. - are much too complicated to be reduced to two diametrically-opposed sides.

Let's examine the war in Iraq, for example. Sen. Obama's supporters frequently stress that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, an argument they feel gives him an advantage over Sen. Clinton in the upcoming campaign against the Republican nominee. The argument becomes "voted against war" versus "voted for war." However, this conflict is one with little relevance to the present situation in Iraq, nearly five years into the war, where the issue is not whether or not to enter a war, but how best to extricate the U.S. from its entanglement in the Middle East. In fact, one of the reasons Sen. Obama opposed the war was that he recognized it would become an occupation without end. Thus, no matter the reasons for Sens. Clinton's and Obama's positions on the war in 2002 when confronted with false statements from the Bush administration and faulty intelligence, the public and the media should logically focus on which candidate has a better strategy for ending the conflict in Iraq. The answer to this question requires careful examination of numerous factors, among them, the safety of U.S. troops, the stability of the region, and the likelihood of success of any plan in the Congress.

Meanwhile, Sen. McCain has steadfastly supported the war in Iraq: in fact, "the surge" was largely his idea. Over the past year, numerous sources have indicated that the surge is working (see, e.g., New York Post, Reuters, Time Magazine). But in recent days, just as many sources indicate that surge gains will dissolve as the U.S. withdraws troops (as it will have to, given the cost). Again, who supported the surge is not as important a question as "what do we do now?"

"Us vs. them" does not allow for the sort of nuanced approach necessary to examine the current position of the U.S. in Iraq, the capacity of Iraqi forces to manage their own security concerns, the cost of maintaining troop levels, and the availability of quality care and support as weary soldiers return home. "Us vs. them" is similarly ill-equipped to handle questions of how to respect religious diversity while condemning crimes committed in the name of religion, and how best to stimulate the economy.

In law school, my Constitutional Law professor repeatedly stressed that democracy is hard work: it requires constant study, frequent meetings, and vigorous debate. At this juncture - with an almost-five-year war in Iraq, an ambivalent threat from Iran, a looming recession, a national debt in the trillions - we cannot afford to decrease our vigilance and allow our leaders, potential leaders, and media to divide the issues along meaningless lines, setting up dichotomies where none exist, pitting us against each other. We need to examine the practical ramifications of each strategy proposed, looking beyond the hyperbole and soundbites typically offered during primary season. While I firmly believe we should carefully consider a candidate's character rather than just his or her stance on specific issues, the only tool we have available to us in order to judge such character is each candidate's record of performance and behavior. We do the candidates and our nation's future a disservice if we fail to examine these records. Moreover, we need to look beyond whether specific initiatives and strategies were ultimately successful, and examine whether they were well-thought-out, constructed in cooperation with allies and adversaries alike, and advocated effectively. Only then can we be assured we are making informed decision, and not led astray by the power of emotion, media spin, and often unrecognized prejudice.

Democracy deserves nothing less.