On one of my magical journeys across the internet I came upon this nice little piece of political experimentation. What follows is one pod-cast dude/blogger's breakdown of the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Each Amendment is then addressed from a stereotypically Conservative and stereotypically Liberal viewpoint. The exercise was intended to address the increasingly propagandist hyperbole of "Anti-Americanism" that gets slung around so much these days and which side really behaves more inline with the hallowed Constitution you 'Mer'cans so revere. I'm gonna include my (entirely biased Liberal) perspective on each as we go.

1.) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Liberal View – Well, except for hate speech.

Conservative View – As long as that religion is a christian one, and no one is burning flags, or desecrating a host, or taking prayer out of school, or….

Advantage: Tie.

My thoughts: I see why the author made this a tie; because both groups don't seem to be entirely in favour of uncensored free speech. However the single Liberal objection next to the myriad Conservative objections rather shifts the argument in the Liberal favour, I feel. The average Liberal does seem to espouse this particular Right, unless it constitutes incitement to hatred/harassment. Which, to me, is a fair objection. The average Conservative, on the other hand, seems only to cry "my rights," key-word; "MY." They then spend the rest of their time trying to strip everyone who doesn't suit them of their rights.

2.) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Liberal View: Guns are dangerous and should be outlawed, see there it’s tied into a “well regulated militia”.

Conservative: See there “shall not be infringed”, it is the right of “the people” to keep weapons.

Advantage: Conservative

My thoughts: I can't really fault the Cons on this one. Personally I find the continued advocation of this particular right to be an anachronism. This is not colonial times, or the Old West. Guns are weapons and I believe none outside of the military (note that "well-regulated militia" part) or police should carry a real gun. At the very least only those trained to handle them with safety and responsibility should be permitted to carry. An arbitrary law allowing any none-trained individual to purchase a fire arm seems ludicrous. I know, I know... it's all about "opposing tyranny" and "rising up against a corrupt government" etc, etc. The modern United States possesses the most powerful armed forces on the planet. You wanna whip out your shotgun and "rise up" against them...? Good luck, sir...... Nevertheless, if we are talking constitutional rights, undiluted and unbiased, the wording is pretty clear. "The right of the people to bear arms.. shall not be infringed." I may think it;s a bad right to have but it is what it is. 1 to the Cons.

3.) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Liberal: I don’t want to house a warmonger!

Conservative: Get off my lawn! My property, my rights!

Advantage: Tie

My thoughts: Fair enough!

4.) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Liberal: Everyone has a right to privacy, what they do in their own homes with mutual consent is nobody’s business but those involved.

Conservative: If you’re not doing anything wrong then you’ve got nothing to hide.

Advantage: Liberal

My thoughts: Tricky one, this. "Unreasonable searches and seizures." "Probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.." All a little vague and open to interpretation. The Liberal answer is exactly my answer and the Conservative answer is another example of double-standards and hypocrisy I see so much from the right. Although, I have to query... if a Con would object to harbouring soldiers in times of war (see 3rd Amendment) surely they would also object to excessive property searches, phone-tapping, personal privacy, etc? Old School, by-the-letter Cons probably would be. I guess it's just the modern Con, all in favour of the rights that protect them, but somehow failing to realise that those rights extend to everyone and in equal measure, that takes this authoritarian stance. Still think the average Lib would be with this Right but I think the Cons would be kinda split.

5.) No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Liberal: Due process is important, sometimes the guilty may go free, but it’s the price of living in a fair and just society.

Conservative: I don’t want a rapist or a murderer to go free just because some police officer forgot to fill out a form, or signed on the wrong dotted line.

Advantage:Liberal

My thoughts: The law is a tricky thing. I don't think any of us want rapists and murderers going free. But neither do we want the innocent going to jail (or executed, since this is the US here!) I never did follow up on my dad's assertions that I'd make a good lawyer so Law is something I don't know enough about to comment on in depth. All I can say is fair, unbiased due process is the only way a free society can try someone and anything more authoritarian would be a breach of rights. This one, specifically.

6.) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Liberal: No problems here…

Conservative: well, unless they’re a terrorist! Stupid trial lawyers!

Advantage: Liberal.

My thoughts: (See also 5th Amendment.) To fairly try someone we need to keep the methods consistent and unprejudiced. As far as this Amendment goes there's little room to argue.

7.) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Conservative: Fine by me…

Liberal: Me as well

Advantage: Tie.

My thoughts: Me too!

8.) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Conservative: Well, unless they’re a terrorist…

Liberal: It’s important that America takes the high moral ground as an example to the rest of the world, what right do we have condemning torture if we inflict it ourselves?

Advantage: Liberal

My thoughts: Jack Bauer made the whole "renegade rule-bender side stepping the law for the Greater Good" look cool. And it is. On TV. In Real Life we have to be a bit more objective. We know who the good guys and bad guys are on TV. We often know more about what's going on than any individual character on the show. Real life isn't like this. Honestly, part of me would hope someone would be willing to overstep the lines of acceptable procedure if a city of millions was under threat of a chemical virus or some-such. But is the reality ever that simple? Whatever Fox News may try and tell you, it's not, and over-simplifying complex issues solves nothing. When all is said and done if this text is details the inalienable moral and ethical rights of a people not to adhere to them, but to preach the Constitution and Bill of Rights out of one side of your mouth, then condone torture out of the other is gross hypocrisy.

9.) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Conservative: Unless they’re a Homosexual…

Liberal: Spot on!

Advantage: Liberal

My thoughts: Indeed. Like the rights of consenting adults to marry, express their sexuality, their religion (or none-religion,) eat meat, not eat meat, etc, etc. free from persecution and prejudice. And, significantly, free from government interference. Hang on....! Isn't it Conservatives who are always harping on about limiting the powers of government yet many of them readily espouse governmental intervention regarding whom one marries, what one believes, what is taught in schools and various other matters, public and private, should be mandated based on the very irrational prejudices and excessive interference the Constitution is meant to check against? Yet Liberals are the "Un-American ones" just cos they want things like universally accessible health care....!!!? Political control over something that affects no-one but the consenting individual parties or is the product of an objective and fair consensus from the experts in said field = Good Conservative Values. E nsuring, by means of the governmental body, all people receive (potentially life-saving) health care = Evil Socialist Conspiracy!!! I think I need to check my blood pressure.....

10.) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Conservative: That’s right, let the states decide!

Liberal: If we’d have let the states decide how would Civil Rights, or Reproductive rights or the rights of Women stand today?

Advantage: Conservative.

My thoughts: So this is where the "Devolved Government" thing comes in. If that is what the Constitution says I guess the Cons have it. But the Lib rebuttal is extremely relevant. I mean, these things are called "Amendments," right? There has to be room for reexamination and change. The very Liberal Theory upon which the US Constitution is based warns against "the tyranny of the majority" and protecting persecuted minorities against it. As the original author poses those very ideals have been addressed via progressive thinkers. Left to the States you'd still have male-only suffrage and apartheid. Also, if you're so concerned with State Autonomy why not just dissolve the USA entirely and become self-governing micro-nations? Oh, because that would suck and you no longer be so rich, powerful and privileged. Yeah.

Totals:

Advantage Liberal: 4

Advantage Conservative: 2

Tie:4

The author rules in favour of the Libs. He's no doubt Liberal himself so no surprise! But reading each Amendment and examining them in the context of stereotypical Conservative views it is hard to see the Cons coming out on top. The US Constitution was founded on Liberal principles. The equality of man, his inalienable rights (forgive the masculine pronouns) and promoting freedom and liberty within the context of an evolved nation-state. It seems to me that government is a necessary element of any cohesive society that seeks to maintain a standard of life, order and well-being amongst the people. We are all answerable to laws in a civilised society and so 'True Freedom,' as it were, would be Anarchy. The difference between nightmarish Orwellian Socialism and mainstream European Socialism is that the former seeks to control the social institutions AND the intellectual, private lives of the people. The latter does not, it merely utilises the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" principle to provide for the people services difficult to maintain for smaller entities and ensure all citizens receive certain inalienable rights and standard of life (sound familiar?)

Liberals, by and large, seem mainly to concern themselves with personal freedoms that do not infringe upon those of others, consistent with the principles of Liberty. Conservatives seem to espouse (sometimes excessive) authority and order and yet, conversely, decry overt control and government involvement. They call freedom and rights when their own are threatened (and even when they're not) but would rob those they have personal prejudices against of their rights. There is a claim to support an almost inerrant reading of the Constitution and yet they fly in the face of it far more than Liberals do. If one wishes to call on the Constitution as the inalienable rights of the people one must hold views consistent with it. If one disagrees with the Constitution one must admit it is flawed and can hardly start slinging jingoisms around at those who then disagree with it in a way you don't. To live by the sword is to die by the sword. If, on the other hand, you want to debate the value of the Constitution, where you agree and disagree, like intelligent adults, that would be good. If you wish to actually think through your principles, their contradictions and hypocrisies, that would be even better.

X

Question. "What does it mean to be 'Open-Minded?'"

A year or two ago I was discussing some issue with Some Guy on Some Guy's xanga and he said this; "we should be careful not to make a virtue of open-mindedness." My response was a civil rebuttal regarding the nature of being open-minded. Still, what I really wanted to say is "why shouldn't we? Open-mindedness IS a virtue." Not simply a virtue but a necessary component for intellectual evolution. But it does seem, to this David, people on both sides of the political spectrum are misunderstanding, and misappropriating, the term "open-minded."

Criticism of "open-mindedness" normally comes from the right. Naturally. Conservatives, generally speaking, espouse traditional values and ideas, those they feel are tried and tested, and they resist progression. It follows suit that they would be less open to, or more reluctant to be open to, new ideas and thus feel open-mindedness represents a threat; an undermining of the traditional ideas they cling to. They also seem to feel that 'open-mindedness' lacks substance; an indecisive avoidance of tackling issues and taking a stance. I have a few things to say about this. The first is, quite simply "no, it's not." Here's a simple and concise definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

	open mind     • noun a mind willing to consider new ideas.   — DERIVATIVES open-minded adjective.

Oooooooh! A picture of the dictionary too! Anyway, this says it all. "A mind willing to consider new ideas." The opposite would concordantly be "a mind NOT willing to consider new ideas." How is that, by any stretch of the imagination, a good thing? Note that the word is 'consider.' Consider does not imply that said new idea must be instantly adopted without trial or examination. It will be 'considered.' To do the opposite and refuse to consider it is anti-intellectual and unethical. Imagine if our world were suddenly governed by closed-minded absolutes. Laws would become swift, brutal and unjust. Research in all areas from medicine to technology would grind to a halt. Education and learning would be nothing but a constant regurgitation of the same reactionary ideas that first sprang up in the barely sentient minds of our distant ancestors, since no one since would have ever tested them. Actually you don't need to imagine too hard as such absolutist societies were, and are, real.

Of course I'm dealing somewhat in absolutes here myself, as far as a person being closed-minded is concerned. But that is the nature of the beast. Second point; closed mindedness is an absolute. It is unalterable. A closed door cannot be walked through. It is closed. That is all there is to it. If it remains closed then you will never know, for better or worse, what is on the other side or whether or not you wish to pass through. An open door, however, can be walked through... or not walked through, depending on your choice. There is no absolute. One can peer through and choose to leave it be. One can leap through and greet the unknown. One can carefully examine what lies beyond and draw some tentative conclusions. But a closed door? Nope. You're stuck in that one room forever. The mistake the (traditionally) conservative right seem to make frequently is to assume that open-mindedness is as much an absolute as their own closed-minded shut-dooriness; once that door is open you must walk through. It does not mean that at all, as stated in Point The First. It just means the door should be open so we can assess those ideas knowledgeably, rather than with blind, intolerant ignorance. It does not mean we plow through into the unknown arbitrarily soaking up everything on the other side. What we really have here in refusing open-mindedness is willful ignorance based on an unreasoning fear of the changes the potential new information may herald. Well, unfortunately facts remain facts, however you feel about them, and remain unchanged whether you chose to open the door on them or not.

If we dispose of 'closed-mindedness' we are still left with its less absolute, but always paranoid and suspicious younger sibling, 'narrow-mindedness.' I would venture to say that most people we call 'closed-minded' are more often than not 'narrow-minded.' Not so absolute as to not consider new ideas but they keep their door permanently ajar, safety chain on, peering with undisguised cynicism through the narrow opening at whatever lies outside, their minds already negatively prejudiced. Third point; attitudes. What people fear is letting something into their room and the possible discord it may cause. Everyone has a certain immature desire to keep the door closed, or slightly ajar, deep down. Evolutionarily it makes sense for us to make defensive snap judgements, to be untrusting and cynical, regarding the unfamiliar. We were once prey to a wide range of predators and there's very little room for deliberation, for unbiased curiosity, for inquisitive gusto. when faced with a saber-toothed tiger. You better damn well run, no time to intellectualise it! "Curiosity killed the cat," as they say. (Or, in this case, was killed by the cat.) But, as ever, the instinctual cues from our primitive past continue to misfire in our somewhat-evolved present. People are sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ageist, selfish and exclusive due to the misfirings of once-useful instinctual reactions which, at our current stage of evolution, are largely obsolete. Discrimination of all kinds is likely rooted in this once-necessary closed-minded/narrow-minded tendency to defensive homogeneity and paranoia. Our evolved psychology may always be littered with the remnants of prior stages of evolution. The trick, as evolved humans, is to be able to examine these reactions when they arise rationally and educate ourselves past them. And to do so we need to hold to the virtue of open-mindedness and resist the reactionary bigotry of our primitive ancestors. Learn not to treat everything new we encounter like a saber-tooth tiger.

Fourth point; when people claim that open-mindedness is not, or shouldn't be, a virtue I believe they are forgetting that much of their own current ideas and assertions are the product of a previous age's 'open-minded' virtue. I intend to discuss the generalities of this failure to acknowledge history in a future post, and in more detail. Anyhoos, it is all-too easy for people, living in their comfortable present, to be wholly ignorant that they are reaping the benefits of some past visionary's open-mindedness. That person rarely perceives the world beyond their own lifetime and, as a result, pictures (consciously, or unconsciously) the circumstances of their own existence as somehow perpetual. They lack relative perspective. They no doubt learn in school the details of who discovered what and who fought for who's rights to do whatever but this information is only seen abstractly. As history lived and past it exists now only in the scholarly writings of professors and (for most) seems entirely disenfranchised from the issues of the present. Those who do not see open-mindedness as a virtue, in light of all it has done for humanity, I suppose fall into two types; those ignorant of history, whom I would doubt the competency of to argue the meaning or validity of anything, and those aware of history. Well, those guys, I question their logic in wishing to slam the door shut on this virtue having freely accepted its fruits already. Poachers turned Gamekeepers. Remember that today's present is tomorrow's past. Would they be so conceited and arrogant to think that all that needs to change, be learned, be discovered, be understood, has been and we can now shut the door on any further attempts at enlightenment?

Point five; reiterating on the first point their definition of open-minded is highly inaccurate. But their attempt to find virtue in their own absolutism is also fallacious. "You have to choose a side sooner or later," Some Guy said this too. He was suggesting that open-minded types never make up their mind and remain wishy-washy permissive liberal fence-sitters unlike the bold and virtuous conservative decisives who pigeon-hole and slam a judgement on every little thing. I guess it's true that standing up for what you believe can be noble. But it's not noble by default. It is the idea in question that may be noble or ignoble, not the zeal with which one stands by it. Passion that can change its mind given the right information is fine and good. Fanaticism, which will never change its mind, is dangerous, and certainly no virtue. Hitler stood up for what he believed in. He took an absolutist, mind-made-up stance. He had millions slaughtered in the name of his firmly-chosen 'side.' Even if you disagree with his stance (I sincerely hope you do) you wanna shower kudos on him for the 'strength of his convictions....?' Didn't think so. Open-mindedness is not about never making up your mind. It is simply about being capable of changing your mind, and assertions, should new information present itself. Of reminding yourself that no matter how firmly held your beliefs may be without the ability to change your mind, to reconsider, to alter, or even discard them, if sufficient reason comes to light, you destroy the integrity of believing in the very thing you believe. Even if you were right in your conclusion, but only in the same sense that a blind squirrel finds a nut. You can believe with passionate fervour but if there is no room for reevaluation you're nothing more than a mindless zealot. Some people seem to believe that absolute, unwavering, immutable conviction is something to be admired. Usually right-wingers who like their world painted black and white, in easy-to-understand, clearly labelled boxes. But life never has been, and never will be, contained in such insufficient terms and attempts to force such absolutism on humanity have resulted in the most grievous atrocities the world has seen as one group sought to impose their unyielding perspectives on another by force.

Sixth point; your mum.