100 Days Down. Part 1: Faction

Here we are, 100 days into the Obama Presidency, and where exactly do we stand as a nation?  Can anyone say for certain?  I don’t want to waste anyone’s time professing to have full answers to these questions.  In fact, taking time to process these questions has prompted me to stop blogging for a while, step back, do some careful thinking and research, and then step back into the arena with something more developed and productive to say.

I am in that process now, but since I have been offline for awhile, I wanted to take a few posts to point out several trends which I believe may increasingly come into play in the coming weeks, months, and years–if at all.  Only time will tell for sure.

And before I offer my thoughts, I want to highlight comments by Julie and Andre at Every Square Inch.  Their comments, and the importance of scrutiny from multiple perspectives, are really what this post is all about.  To summarize my thoughts in a statement: With so much at stake, citizens must be more engaged, vocal, and measured than ever–and that includes me and you!

Julie’s and Andre’s comments are crucial because both, in their own ways, recognize the ineffectiveness and counterproductive nature of narrow-minded partisan thinking and oppositional communication.  It is easy to rail against a particular candidate or issue, and then write a blog post to vehemently agree with other like-minded critics.  This trend is strong in the blogging community, it is fracturing national unity in profound ways, and in the present web-driven media environment it is hard to know where this trend will lead.  I for one do not want to contribute to more fracturing.

So, I trust you will see my motivation is not partisan rancor.   Indeed, partisan rancor is exactly the problem I want to address.  I want to do so in the context of effective communication.  In other words, emotionalism and (dare I say) idolatry, make us so liable to be under the possession of partisanship that it is hard to have a candid dialog.  The founders called this scourge Faction and they were right to be concerned.

FACTION

James Madison breaks it down for us in Federalist 10, providing both a clear definition of faction and an assessment of the real risk to us.  The definition:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

The risk:

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished…It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

Faction begins in our own hearts, friends.  It comes when “what I want” replaces “what is truly best for all.”  For when we get to the question of what is best for all, we must then bring all groups into the conversation with us.

THIS is why a core value of mine on the political front is to work for more effective communication from a plurality of stakeholders, not just a narrow group of partisans, in determining public policy.  THIS is what brings me to my 100 days assessment.  I have admired Obama from the beginning because he has seemed to be committed to open-mindedness and plurality.  Yet, I did not vote for him because I believe he seems too green, unproven, and unclear about his ideological affinities to navigate the issues surrounding the Presidency at this moment.

Now I am wondering if he actually is clear about his agenda, but unopen about them.  I don’t know, but the evidence in his actions speaks louder than his words here.  I hope these posts can spark more careful, humble discussion about that.

This leads to the subject of my next post, which I will preview for you:  Knowledge Gaps. There are clear Knowledge Gaps that make effective communication very difficult.   As I hope to show, Knowledge Gaps put us in a vulnerable and dependent position regarding understanding, analyzing, and deciding upon the matters at hand.  Effective communication depends upon some level of mastery of the issues at hand.  To be effective in the present environment and avoid Faction, I believe “we the people” need to address these Knowledge Gaps pluralistically, that is, together.  So, please invite your friends to A Deo Lumen to join the conversation.

For now, let’s begin with ourselves.  Let’s take one day to carefully consider our own internal attitudes towards government, President Obama, and towards our fellow citizens.  Here are some helpful questions we can ask ourselves:

• Am I demanding the government represent my views and even implement my own moral regime?
• Am I knowledgeable enough of the Constitutional principles Mr. Obama is called to uphold?
• Do I really want to move America forward on our founding values? Or, do I believe the Constitution is largely irrelevant, a product of a past colonial age, and unable to truly address the issues at hand?
• Am I interested in understanding a plurality of viewpoints on political issues, even if they expose my own shortcomings and narrow-mindedness?
• What do I need to do (i.e., study time and open inquiry) to have a truly informed and productive conversation with those of different perspectives?

If you or I are not willing to understand issues from a plurality of viewpoints (doesn’t mean we agree with all viewpoints), and if we don’t understand the Constitution and its underlying values, it is hard to communicate effectively about Obama’s marks a few months into his Presidency.  Indeed, our narrowness may even contribute to Faction.  And James Madison’s concerns apply to us.

My contention is that if we really want hope and change, we need to learn how to communicate effectively and avoid Faction.  We need not agree, but we need to be willing to listen.  I think Obama’s ability to convey that he is a listener has won over many converts.  But as we will explore in upcoming posts, there is more to consider than just appearances.