Life or Liberty—a Good Fight?

Political Tribalism. It’s fascinating to me that our two dominant political tribes, conservative republicans and liberal democrats, have flip-flopped sides in these two areas. In the abortion fight, conservative republicans have long held that the human life in a woman’s body overrides her personal liberties. In the corona virus fight, these same people argue that personal liberties cannot be infringed on by the government, even though it puts lives at risk. Many make their arguments with arrogant confidence, condemning their opponents harshly. This smacks of duplicity, but liberal democrats are equally guilty. In the corona virus fight they defend extreme government stay-at-home orders as necessary to save lives even though they’ve defended the liberties of women for decades as having higher value than the potential human lives abortions terminate.

Black and White Perspectives. As you read this you may be responding in your mind with rationalizations that justify your point of view because you’re probably in one of these two camps. People opposed to abortion might think about how helpless pre-born babies are; that when a woman has an abortion, she’s taking away an entire human life before it’s really begun; that the woman’s actions led to her condition so she should live with the consequences, etc. You may be thinking about how corona virus is a natural disease, not a human choice, so when it takes a life you can’t blame the choices of people, etc. People who support abortion rights might argue that a fetus isn’t really a human life; that the woman’s choice relates to her physical body and doesn’t affect anyone else; etc., while the corona virus stay-at-home orders prevent people from selfish actions that will cost the lives of other people, so on and so forth.

These are thought processes that come from our human desire to make right and wrong appear clear, like the colors black and white. We want to be good and we want to be confident in our goodness. Once we embrace a value as good people who disagree with us appear morally flawed. Their reasonings seem like evil rationalizations that distort truth and goodness.

People supporting government restrictions need to stop insulting their opponents, accusing them of being selfish idiots, even though some extremists do very offensive things (such as carrying assault rifles into state capital buildings and screaming in the faces of police officers). They need to listen to the objections, even if they disagree, and consider seriously if some concessions can be made to bring the conflict into balance.

In the abortion fight, it’s okay to have your black-and-white perspectives, but both sides need to be willing to resolve the conflict with a balanced reality. Abortion opponents can push for restrictions on the most offensive abortion practices such as late-term procedures, instead of insisting that all abortion after conception needs to be outlawed. Abortion defenders can soften their extreme position of no government infringement at all and stop reacting in fear that a few laws restricting some procedures could lead to all abortions being banned. Both camps need to stop condemning their opponent as degenerates and respect that they have some valid points.

In a good fight we seek to understand those we disagree with, respectfully make the case for what we believe, and work to find an optimal solution between extremes. It’s okay to keep fighting the good fight so there’s always some tension in the conflict, but it’s a tension that feeds understanding. When it degenerates into judgmental condemnation it’s not a good fight any more.

Evidence of Wrong. It’s okay to look for evidence of evil. Sometimes people really are up to no-good and we need to be diligent to catch them. When we find evidence of deception, secret agendas, conspiracies, etc., we need to keep in mind that the evidence might have another explanation. Bring it to light with a tone of speculation, not presumption. Bring out the evidence with direct questioning and force those who appear to be deceiving to come clean, but don’t presume guilt. Good fighting reveals wrongdoing eventually, but until the accused have a chance to defend themselves, we need to presume innocence and acknowledge that there could be a valid explanation for the evidence that points to guilt.

Benefit of a Doubt. This “presumed innocent until proven guilty” is a fundamental concept of our criminal justice system with roots in our constitution. It’s also a fundamental concept of good fighting. If we want conflict to be constructive in marriage, families, social groups, governments, and nations we need to give people the benefit of a doubt when they do or say things that appear suspect.

Choose Influencers Wisely. We Americans all need to choose who we listen to. We need to stop supporting outspoken fighters who attack our opponents harshly. Instead we need to support respectful leaders who demonstrate understanding of both sides. It’s okay to favor leaders we agree with, but they must be knowledgeable and respectful. They need to be good fighters who make conflict constructive.

Bottom Line. I hope all who read this will commit themselves to fighting good fights and playing the role of peacemaker when conflict isn’t constructive.