Clint
Eastwood recently plunged into the murky political pond with his
statement, "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and
that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the
right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left." Is
it easy to be an extremist, and is the political scale truly circular, so
that the "far right" clasps hands with the "far left"?
Does the left-right continuum serve as a constructive paradigm upon which
society can be structured? Today's
"extremists" are in good company: Jesus, Martin Luther, Abraham
Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Baruch Spinoza all bore this label at one
time. Jan De Witt and his brother Cornelius—17th Century
Dutch politicians—were hacked to death by the populace, largely due to
their "radical" and "unsavory" political perspective.
Their crime? They were proponents of democracy.
Their body parts were displayed in storefronts all over town. Who
shall we call extreme? The vigilantes who did the lynching? The
shopkeepers who showcased the body parts? Or the De Witts with their
pro-democracy stance? Do
"extreme" beliefs emanate from a mechanical thought process, as
Eastwood suggests, rather than an intense philosophical journey? It
arguably requires reflection and hypercritical analysis to defend ones
theories against the cloned, echoed and mass produced opinion of the
common folk; it requires conviction to risk social ostracism and other
forms of retaliation. The
"approved" or popular view is more likely to be perfunctory. Why
think when one can plagiarize? Why go out on a limb when one can cling
onto the tree or never climb in the first place? Eastwood
may view those on the "far right" and "far left" as
moralistically shrill, as manifesting a tone level of fear and anger.
Perhaps this is how the "right" and "left" overlap or
come full circle in his mind. But this is a gross generalization, since
the "extremes" are subjective and the political continuum
fallacious. Suppose
we accept the commonly accepted paradigm of a left to right political
continuum, as Eastwood offers. If we define the "left" as the
group that protects the voiceless, the powerless, and the forgotten, then
the natural progression would be to protect the truly voiceless –
animals and nature. Nonhumans
are excluded from our political system, without representation.
They have no standing in court; yet corporations do. In fact,
nonhumans are virtually omitted from the conversation in our
anthropocentric and speciesist society. A
move "left" arguably means to move away from Democracy – which
is really just a rule by the elite (humans) – to an Omniocracy (which I
describe as a government of, by and for all living beings). The European
Union has added nonhumans to their Constitution, as have Switzerland and
Germany. New Zealand, India and Reggio Emilio, Italy have outlawed using
animals in ways we normally think acceptable in the U.S. (boiling lobsters
alive, keeping fish in small bowls, vivisection, etc.). We
are trailing behind other nations, but it would be difficult to sell a
Constitutional amendment to our What's the Matter With Kansas?
country at this time. It would be easier to convince certain states. You may be thinking what would stuffing a few extra words in a
state Constitution really do. Well, words are a powerful tool and an
important start. Lastly,
does this move to the left spit us out on right? Probably. One could argue
that traditional "right" politics prompts a gap between the rich
and poor, thus culminates in the rule by a few, such as corporations.
To implement policies that foster the idea that nonhuman species
have value "in and of themselves," a "top down"
government or rule by a few (although not corporations) again seems
required. People
are self-interested (as are all species) thus cannot be expected to vote
against their desires. Legislators, however, are different (or should be)
because they attain self-worth from helping others, being fair and
inclusive, and consulting the "big picture." There will
naturally be conflicts of interest between species and individuals; but
government's job—in an omniocracy as in our current system-- will be to
mediate and arbitrate these "disputes." We
are taught democracy is the most inclusive, just and beneficent political
system in the world. It is time to re-evaluate. Successful ideas advance
through three stages: first ridicule, then discussion, finally adoption. I
say we begin the discussion to which Eastwood's words have provided a
starting point. _______________________ The Clint Eastwood quote is taken from Feb 28, 2005 issue of Time Magazine and was posted to Mayor Jerry Brown's Internet blog in March 2005. |
