• IN THIS SECTION

July 16, 2008

Exclusive: It’s Not about Uniting or Changing – It’s about ‘Why’

Gabriel Garnica, Esq.

"Unity" and "change" have been big campaign mantras lately but, as often happens, any constructive or rational analysis of these terms should begin with the simple question, "why?"

The Most Important Letter in the Alphabet

A former professor of mine once asked our class, "What is the most important letter in the alphabet?" Half of us thought he had finally lost his mind and the other half thought that he had finally run out of prepared material. Following the maxim that, when faced with an odd question, you should just jump in and swim in it, we blurted out various candidates complete with ready-made, if not thoroughly convincing, rationales for our choices. Some said "A" because it was first, others Z because it was last, and the rest offered other letters for many similarly weak reasons.

After listening to our choices, the professor chimed in with "The letter ‘Y' is the most important, because it reminds us that being able to explain "why" we say or do something is often as, if not more, important to express than the fact that we saying or doing anything. It is nice to tell someone you love him or her but, if you cannot come up with a viable reason why, some will question your sincerity, sanity or both."

Given these observations, we should not be surprised to hear people proclaim unity or change as campaign mantras. After all, they have to come up with something, and these themes are as good as any other ones. What we should be focusing on, however, is "why" we need unity or change. Anyone who either cannot come up with a rational reason or has to struggle like the dickens to give us a reason for unity or change is unlikely to generate much support, at least in theory.

United We Stand?

Is unity always a good thing? Must we strive for unity for unity's sake, or should there always be some rational, sane reason for seeking unity on any given issue or position? Are there times when division is good? These are core questions which we need to answer if we are to make any sense when promoting unity as some crusade to be followed.

Suppose you belong to a group which suddenly adopts a position contrary to your values. Should you unite with the rest of the group simply for the sake of unity, or would you be better off distinguishing yourself from their views? If you side with the majority of your group 99% of the time, does that make you a soldier for unity or a coward for convenience? Many would say that true integrity calls for us to seek unity as long as that unity comports with our values and beliefs, but to have the courage and conviction to stand apart from the crowd when that crowd's position contrasts with our own.

My experience is that contrast, the reality of seeing differences between positions and views, is what often provides us with the greatest opportunities for growth and improvement. Show me someone who never sees contrasts and I will show you a boring, stagnant wimp who will not contribute much to anyone's, much less his own, growth. Likewise, one of the most foolish foundations of political correctness is the notion that highlighting differences is somehow offensive or intolerant. It seems to me that such a focus is only offensive or intolerant if it is done with no rational, constructive or purposeful motivation or purpose. Prejudice is distinguishing based on a rationale of ignorance, hate or intolerance. Distinguishing based on a rationale of common sense, rational analysis and growth, however, is a good thing not to be ignored.

For example, suppose schools did not distinguish between A students and failing students because to do so might offend the failing students (we might end up there one day!). Such a policy would render hard work and dedication to one's studies a waste of time in many ways. It would actually reward the lazy and incompetent and even coddle them, despite their own responsibility in their predicament (sound familiar?). At the end of the day, a little division is a good thing. It adds common sense and spice to the proceedings of society. Disagreement and debate are the cornerstones of a free and democratic society - not to mention a sane one.

The Only Thing That Should Always Be Changed is a Used Diaper

Just as unity for unity's sake is a pretty pathetic mantra, change for the sake of change can be a superficial and similarly sad theme to follow. From a logical standpoint, it is impossible to fully change. Such a position would imply that everything about a former position or view was wrong and should be replaced. Common sense and life experience tells us that this is rarely the case.

It is rare that a previous position is so flawed that it requires a complete makeover. There are often good things to be retained accompanying the bad things to be replaced.

In fact, the mere idea of change as a universal good is logically flawed. Suppose position A is, as change people must imply, completely flawed requiring change. It would seem, then, that one would want to change from A to a position which is completely free of any flaws. This would be an ultimate goal of any endeavor. Yet such unflawed positions are few and far between, so most endeavors would be crusades doomed to failure or disappointment.

Let's assume, then, that most positions are flawed in some respect and good in some respect.

To advocate mere change for the sake of change in such cases, we would have to argue that those things we want to change are flawed and those things we do not want to change are not flawed. However, since few if any endeavors result in a perfect solution, it is clear that most if not all change efforts are doomed to some defeat.

Change is a good thing as long as we have a good reason for seeking it and a rational plan for accomplishing it. It is a good thing as long as we apply it with precision, targeting only that which should be changed and sparing that which should not be changed. Change without reason or for superficial reasons, carried out in haphazard and clueless manner, is as destructive or perhaps more so than fear of any change at all.

Conclusion

The next time someone pushes unity or change, ask him or her why they are pursuing that goal in the given situation. If that person or group's reason for seeking unity or change appears flimsy or biased, you have a duty to hold them responsible and accountable for their flawed reasons.

In this age where political and social positions and arguments are marketed like toasters or coffee, we have an increased responsibility to question the reasons and motivations behind a call for unity or change. In view of the powerful impact of technology and the media in such marketing efforts, we must remain ever vigilant lest we fall prey to the hypnotic spell of such outlets.

In the end, a truly free society values division as a healthy thing and respects the value of not changing when change is not called for. It is amusing that liberals often hype unity and change as if they were universal goods, yet they rarely provide any concise, cogent or rational justification for their mantras in these areas. Perhaps this is so because their only true rationale in these cases is pushing their own agenda regardless of that position or view's moral, logical or sensible weaknesses.

Oh, one more thing that we should consider: Without division, there would never be change. If we were always united, we would never find a need to change. Conversely, if we always changed, true unity would be impossible. So, you see, in the end, liberals' joint advocacy of unity merely for the sake of unity and change merely for the sake of change is a logical contradiction.

Liberals telling us to be united while they cannot be united to common sense. Some things never change.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gabriel Garnica, Esq., is a college professor who holds a law degree from New York University. Write him at gbgmyarticles@yahoo.com.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: