Right and Wrong in Politics
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting editorial piece about right and wrong in politics. In it, the author identifies how easy it easy for any of us to define right and wrong based on passions:
"In October 1787, amid economic crisis and widespread fears about the new nation's ability to defend itself, Alexander Hamilton, in the first installment of what was to become the Federalist Papers, surveyed the formidable obstacles to giving the newly crafted Constitution a fair hearing. Some would oppose it, Hamilton observed, out of fear that ratification would diminish their wealth and power. Others would reject it because they hoped to profit from the political disarray that would ensue. The opposition of still others was rooted in 'the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.'" (Source)
We've all known that an extreme attachment to religion (Note: religion, I define as a dogma) can cause people to believe wrong is right. Have our colleges and universities embraced a type of religion in their passion for a certain brand of politics?
Is it even possible for us, as imperfect people, to dispassionately, and rationnally, choose right within politics?
Or is the solution for us to each acknowledge how incomplete our ability to choose right over wrong is, and embrace, as the WSJ author states, "an appreciation of the limits of one's knowledge"?
And if we do, who makes the decisions?