A comparison
I'm sitting here at home (in Manitoba!) watching the two presumptive combatants in this fall's ugliness field questions from Rick Warren, the pastor of one of these megachurches, in a pair of interviews conducted yesterday (I think). Initially, I watched Obama's interview because the guy is fascinating to listen to and because I really do like him (the former may well be a consequence of the latter). Then I felt somewhat obligated to stay and watch McCain's as well, since I haven't really heard too much of what he has to say, having made up my mind quite some time ago which way my ballot will be cast in November.
So I'm sitting here listening to John McCain answer the same questions that I just heard Barack Obama answer, and trying to sort out just what the difference is between the two (besides the fact that my spell-checker flags "Barack Obama" as misspelled, and not "John McCain"). Obviously some of the answers are different, but there seems to be a more fundamental difference, which may or may not reflect a fundamental difference between the so-called "conservative" and "liberal" ideologies. And that has to do with this question -- is the world simple, or is the world complex? In response to that, should the manner in which we engage with the world, the manner in which we make decisions, be simple or complex?
Put another way, is the world black and white, or shades of gray? Time and again, Rev. Warren would ask a question, and Obama would give a careful and measured response in which he expressed an appreciation for how complex the issue was, and a respect for the position.
When McCain's turn came, very often the question would barely be completed before he shot back a short, simple answer.
When does life begin? At conception. Next?
What should we do about energy? Drill offshore. Next?
How do we deal with evil? Hunt down al-Qaeda. Next?
And so on. Of course this is an exaggeration -- McCain did give thoughtful, measured responses to all the questions, not the two word throwaways I suggest here. But with each successive answer, he reinforced my impression that he thinks all of these things have simple answers, that the way to deal with the world is clear-cut, black and white, and that the answer to which he has come is the only reasonable one. Obama, by contrast, would always approach a sensitive issue by giving his own opinion and also expressing his respect for those who end up disagreeing with him.
No doubt this is in part due to the fact that McCain was in some sense on home turf -- an evangelical megachurch's congregation is likely to be on his side when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, and all the other hot-button issues that rabble-rousers like to inject into the debate at the expense of more important things like whether the environment will still be able to support our technological civilisation in fifty years. But this is an impression that I often get when listening to the two sides: from the conservative point of view, one has a well defined set of rules with which to confront the world, and problems have relatively simple solutions, hence existing systems should be preserved; from the liberal point of view, any set of rules is somehow flawed, and the world is complex, hence existing systems should be reformed.
That may be harking back to an older definition of liberal and conservative, but it seems to make sense to me as a template through which to view the debate. Any thoughts?
--------------
p.s. Let me just comment on one specific question and answer in the interview, the question of "Does evil exist, and do we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it, or defeat it?" Obama's answer was more or less that evil must be confronted, but that we must be wary that those who seek to do good have often ended up perpetrating great evil themselves (and he said rather more besides). McCain's answer was very different -- he said, in effect, "Defeat it. I will hunt down Osama bin Laden and eliminate al-Qaeda from the face of the earth."
That is to say, McCain gave a very good answer had the question been, "Does al-Qaeda exist, and do we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it, or defeat it?" The question, however, was not about al-Qaeda, but about evil. McCain appears to have heard the word "evil" and substituted the phrase "radical Islamic fundamentalism", or perhaps "terrorism" -- I must say, I like Obama's answer much better.
Going along with that is McCain's idea of what the greatest challenge the world faces in the coming years -- radical Islamic fundamentalism. I don't remember Obama's answer, or if perhaps the question was asked to Obama before I sat down on the couch, but I disagree profoundly with that sentiment, and am quite frightened by it. I may have given my hand away already -- I believe that the greatest challenge the world faces is quite simply the question of whether or not we will have a livable world in fifty or a hundred years. I've said this before and I'll say it again -- if we screw the planet up and it becomes unlivable, then nothing else matters. We need to get our priorities in order, and fast.
