Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [13]
Ah, the innocent 1970s with their disco music, bell bottoms, and Studio 54! That simpler time when there was no sense of the impending wave of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Papa Bear O’Reilly. If only our contemporary debate was as civil as the theatre of the absurd from a mere couple of decades before.
But what we have these days is not merely a lack of civility, but a lack of actual debate, even in our forums that supposedly are set aside for it. No one pointed this out better than Jon Stewart in his infamous appearance on Crossfire with conservative bowtie boy Tucker Carlson and Clintonista Paul Begala:
You’re doing theater, when you should be doing debate… . It’s not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery… . You have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably… . we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy. (October 15th, 2004)
Stewart pointed out quite dramatically that what gets substituted for actual discourse is pre-packaged, focus group tested talking points, not open-minded, passionate, good faith discussions of hard issues.
The issues we face seem so hard because they are, in fact, hard. There are no simple solutions to difficult, multi-faceted problems like abortion, protecting ourselves from terrorist attacks, or fixing the educational and health care systems. Pragmatic policy aspects and moral dimensions are inextricably woven through these issues. It’s dangerous and disingenuous to offer simple solutions to hard problems. Whenever someone tries to sell you on a simple solution, your best option is to put your hand on your wallet and run like hell.
Why Moral Doubt Is a Good Thing
In facing hard moral questions, there are two reasons why we need to embrace our moral doubt and not see it as an indication of a flaw in our character. The first is that a lack of moral doubt will trap us in our own perspective. It may be true that Stephen Colbert does not see race, that when other people tell him that he’s white that he believes them because he shops at Eddie Bauer. And if all of this is true, then when Stephen Colbert is informed of his skin color, his set of beliefs about the world have been enlarged by someone else’s perspective in a meaningful way that might be operative in teasing out the subtle differences in the way he and the Report’s black Republican correspondent, P.K. Winsome, may view a given issue or event.
Every perspective emphasizes a different aspect that deserves legitimate concern. Liberals will emphasize fairness, equality, and the need to be concerned about the least among us. Fiscal conservatives will highlight the fact that our proposed solutions will affect the larger economy and that bureaucratizing functions often causes us to be less effective at actually realizing the help we intend to lend. Greens will point out how our choices affect the Earth and the way that larger influences, especially corporate interests, have to be understood to look at the problem correctly. Libertarians will stress the need to protect individual freedoms. Supporters of Lyndon Larouche will remind us that the Queen of England is a CIA operative listening to our thoughts through the fillings in our teeth.
This is not to say that no opinions are wrong. Of course, some are. Nor is it to say that some ideas are worse than others. Of course, some are. Some opinions are well reasoned, based on reality, and ready for implementation. Others are ideological, ill-informed, impractical, and plain old stupid. We should prefer the good ones to the bad ones. Just because everyone has a right to his or her opinion doesn’t mean that some opinions aren’t utterly irrational to hold.
This, then, is the second reason why moral doubt is a good thing. Sometimes even the best of us can get it wrong. One guard against error is competition.
When Stephen Colbert says he trusts the marketplace, this need not only be