Politics, dogma, orthodoxy, partisanship and David Copperfield

Little David Copperfield had a bad run of it. Born into bleak circumstances, losing his mother, being kicked around, running from place to place, finding a hero in James Steerforth, lifting himself up by his bootstraps, being ever loyal and earnest and sincere, marrying the wrong way then finding meaning and fulfillment as a widower and finally marrying the right way. Tragic, but heart-warming. Vintage Dickens, who described it as his most auto-biographical novel.

C.D. and D.C. did little overt philosophizing in the book. It was a long, linear story about a young boy growing into a man. There were some poignant moments that seem to condemn 19th century English society, but I'm loathe to draw too many conclusions. I've heard Jane Austen described as a woman before her time who cleverly and subtley took stabs at English classes in 18th century England. When I read her, I can't help but conclude that people are trying to read satire into her to compensate for her apparent acceptance of society. The critics, I believe, are imposing their own cynicism on her. I find no objective evidence to support their conclusions (though I readily admit I'm no scholar in the field and have not even attempted to study this out). What I see is someone who was very much a product of her time and who was a master of character development.

My point is that I think David Copperfield is primarily a slice of life take from the author's own life, granted with fictionalized components. To read it as a social commentary is perhaps trying too hard. Having read the book, I don't see any clear reason to assume that Dickens was trying to condemn poverty, child labor or anything else. There's no doubt he considered such things tragic and wrong, but the text is more about life: pain, trial, friendship, love, loyalty, character, greed, ambition, growth, etc. It just so happens that the vehicle to paint that total picture is 19th century England--which was indeed bleak in many respects. I tip my hat to Dickens for tackling such a realistic (sometimes naturalistic) view of things. I think he was poking fun more like Gary Larson in The Far Side than Garry Trudeau in Doonesbury. He was never so self-conscious and determined as Trudeau, but had a sharp wit and couldn't help but poke fun at society in general. But was he political? I don't think so.

Well, I better stop with that before someone thinks I think I know what I'm talking about, because I know I don't.

Political and social commentary today is so often less artful. It's so often loud and in-your-face. Everyone has an opinion, whether they've bothered to develop it or not. Politics are more reactionary, imo, than thoughtful and considered. I have had endless discussions over the years with many people about politics, but few seem to want to discuss the matter, but prefer bold pronouncements. Where is the thinking taking place? Is anyone sitting down and mulling over political issues? If so, where are these people?

I have certainly run across people who appear to be reflecting about political issues, but really they appear to have theses. They appear to be trying to articulate for themselves what they've already adopted from others--the canned arguments they're learning to parrot from teachers, parents and friends. It's strange to me. Where has the dialog gone? Why the determined predisposition toward certain views? Where's the reasoning, analysis and discussion?

Most of my discussions with other people have fallen into the category of apology--listing the evidences and arguments supporting a predetermined point of view. But how did they get there? Why are they so unwilling to challenge their own biases? Why is there so much pressure to think this way or that? There's overwhelming self-righteousness everywhere. Policy decisions are always discussed as moral issues. Since when is universal health care a "moral" issue? Since when is mandatory minimum sentences a "moral" issue? Why can't we call them what they are--complex questions. Why can't we assume that those that think one way and those that think the other are honest, good people? Why do we say that immigration laws and campaign finance laws are matters of fundamental human morality? Why take dogmatic, rigid, polarized positions to issues? Why do both parties adopt views opposing the other? I rankle at partisanship and the need to have someone define my issues and my positions.

People talk about being progressive or liberal or conservative or libertarian or this or that. Those terms have lost meaning with me (if they ever had it). Why is spending tons of money on the military "conservative"? Why is the social security program "liberal"? Where is the common philosophy governing the positions? Frankly, neither major party seems to have a cohesive, uniform theory that governs its politics.

Politics isn't where it begins or ends. There's an ever-waging battle between so-called orthodoxy and so-called progressiveness. In my view, orthodox simply means it's old. Sometimes that means it's entrenched. Sometimes it means its reasoned. Who knows.

The questions of dogma, doctrine, orthodoxy and partisanship are fundamentally fallacious. The question shouldn't be whether it is conventional or unconventional, but whether it's right or wrong, or effective or ineffective. As long as it isn't wrong, there are a lot of possible right answers. Is taxing gasoline heavily right or wrong? I say it's neither--it's based on a policy assumption. It's not a fundamentally moral question. I don't deny that people's sense of morality underlies all policy and all laws, but that does not mean that policy is right or wrong in any absolute sense.

I always try to fight the gravitational pull of partisanship. I hope I can analyze policy on its own merits.

I think some of this view of partisanship is a fiction created by talking heads. I think most Americans vote across party lines. I hope so, anyhow. Not that the only right way to vote is for both parties. That idea reminds me of the false notions that "diversity is good" or "change is good." I disagree. Good diversity is good. Good change is good. Diversity that includes pedofiles, murderers and warmongers is not good diversity. Change that includes blowing up planet earth is not good change.

David Copperfield was ingenuous and searching. He was also tough and sometimes bold and outspoken. He made moral judgments and followed his conscience. He was tough-minded when decided, open-minded when searching. He was loyal to a fault and slow to judge and condemn. But when condemnation and judgment were due, he was unequivocal and sometimes fierce. There's no question that he despised Uriah Heep and had little sympathy for his pathetic upbringing and how that might have contributed to his evil (perhaps because whose upbringing could be more pathetic than David's?).

I think David Copperfield is the model of what I advocate here. He was neither partisan or dogmatic. But neither was he weak and undecided. He drew his own conclusions based on his own observations and did the best he could to follow his judgment.

I aspire to that model. Let's be clear: there's a difference between being dogmatic and simply being sure of oneself. Both may be unyielding and even stubborn, but one does it because of dogma, the other (I hope) because of reason and moral courage.

The world does not need fewer determined people--it just needs more people that are self-determined.