Differences are good.
I want to change the words we use. The words "centricism" and "less partisanship", for example. To me, they imply that dissent and debate are not welcome. "Extreme" and "extremism" are other codewords of disparagement and rejection of differences. I don't even like "compromise" because that implies to many people that they must give away some principle or preference. I want to have different words, like collaborate, cooperate.
I don't like "centricism" and "less partisanship" for another reason--they imply opposites, duality, opposition, control, conflict. For example, I come from a position that says one cannot be extreme in applying the substance and prinicples of our Constitution. All interests, majority, minority, and individual are protected and reflected there. There is no center in the Constitution. There is no party in the Constitution. It is either within the substance and principles of the Constitution, or it is not. Liberty is another example. My liberty ends where your's begins, yet collaboratively we can both have it. As long as we apply oppositional constructs, or say that the center is a place of no opposition (which is a canard and false), we imply that differing views are illegitimate. I've had enough of that, thank you.
Your mileage may differ.
I want to change the words we use. The words "centricism" and "less partisanship", for example. To me, they imply that dissent and debate are not welcome. "Extreme" and "extremism" are other codewords of disparagement and rejection of differences. I don't even like "compromise" because that implies to many people that they must give away some principle or preference. I want to have different words, like collaborate, cooperate.
I don't like "centricism" and "less partisanship" for another reason--they imply opposites, duality, opposition, control, conflict. For example, I come from a position that says one cannot be extreme in applying the substance and prinicples of our Constitution. All interests, majority, minority, and individual are protected and reflected there. There is no center in the Constitution. There is no party in the Constitution. It is either within the substance and principles of the Constitution, or it is not. Liberty is another example. My liberty ends where your's begins, yet collaboratively we can both have it. As long as we apply oppositional constructs, or say that the center is a place of no opposition (which is a canard and false), we imply that differing views are illegitimate. I've had enough of that, thank you.
Your mileage may differ.
No comments:
Post a Comment