The Shining City On the Hill, Or Why You Shouldn't Believe Everything that You See

I had an interesting discussion today. It concerned the condition of free speech in our great United States, and just what free speech entails. Continuing that discussion is not what I want to do here, but some thoughts that popped into my head that resulted from that talk are. Why is there such divisiveness in America today? There are harder lines between the two sides that probably have not been seen since the Civil War. It has gotten to the point that people cannot even talk the same language, and there is no understanding between the two. The political parties are little help, as one is deeply intolerant of any differing views and the other is too much of a wimp to fight back. How does someone clear out the bull crap out there?
The answer goes to the heart of what is wrong in America. Partisanship is not the problem. The problem is that even thought both sides are speaking English, they are speaking two different languages. What I mean by this is that each side holds quite different things valuable, and reason has nothing to do with it. What I am speaking about are value judgements. For those of you without a philosophical background, these are the moral foundations for each person's worldview of morality. These are grounding statements, unsupported by any further reasoning. To arrive at these, one must strip away the rationale for each moral position that one holds. To make it simple, make a moral statement like "murder is wrong" and ask yourself why until either you cannot answer rationally, or create a circular logic. Every moral decision can be broken down in this fashion. There are two basic value judgments at heart of nearly all discord here. The first judgement is A)One Culture is Superior to Another, or B)All Cultures are Equally Valuable. In our case, choice A is called American Exceptionalism, and choice B is Moral Relativism.
American exceptionalism is the belief that America is the shining city on the hill, as President Ronald Reagan once stated, and serves as a beacon of goodness and light for the world. Moral Relativism views that every culture is equally good and evil, and there is no "right" way. How does this play into America's discussion? Well, you have to look at another value judgement to see this, is there C)clearly defined good and evil, or is D)everything a shade of gray. When one combines A and C, and B and D, you have a basis for discord that cannot be reasoned out of, nor can either side compromise.
This can most clearly be seen in the abortion debate. One side equates abortion with one of the blackest evils, murder, and the other believes that such morality is misguided and that it is an imposition of a tyranny over others. There can never be a compromise between these two positions. One side has to lose, another win. This is done by changing a person's value judgments.
The even more insidious thing is when you build a logical framework over these value judgements. Both sides can truly believe what they are doing is right, but to a person who values different things, they could not be more wrong. You can see this when Republicans cringe when Democrats talk about national security and peace, and Democrats howl when Republicans pass laws dealing with morality. Each side believes that they are doing the right thing, but they are coming from two completely different places.
Now, why talk about all of this. It is little fun when someone talks about how something works and then does not take a position on the subject. I will take a position. I believe that it is completely the fault of those who follow the side of moral relativism and grayness that are too blame for our current discord. A society must believe in itself to avoid decay, and moral relativism erodes this. The doctrine of moral relativism is not just the happy idea of learning and respecting other cultures, but accepting that they are valid if judged by their own standards. Well, that is a crock, as every culture meets its own standards, otherwise it changes or the standards change. Moral relativism must allow anything and everything. We cannot criticize something that we find abhorrent, simply because that is how other people choose to live. When coupled with that there truly is no good or evil, you find yourself having to accept things as valid that should sicken even the strongest stomachs.
But, isn't it wrong to just assume that we are the best, and that everyone should be like us? Isn't that tyrannical? Well, assuming that tyranny is not a valid choice, which provides an interesting dilemma for the moral relativist (aren't they judging someone else's culture and assigning badness or evil to it?) the believer in Goodly American Exceptionalism (I created this term to show the combination of the two values and to save words) has an answer. First we start with the basis that there are clearly defined good and evil, which by doing so quantifies them. It is easier to think of a framework of three circles, in which are placed actions and thoughts. Who or what places them where and the validity of this is a theological or legal discussion for another post. For the Goodly American Exceptionalist, God creates this framework. Our Founding Fathers codified this framework in our form of government and laws. Being moral men, these laws enshrined three basic concepts: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These things were seen as unequivocally good. It is this goodly foundation which creates the shining city on the hill. This allows the modern person to compare what we have to how others organize their societies, and without exception, find them lacking.
This is not to say that we are perfect, but we strive to fulfill goodness, with the help of the Almighty. Many others have emulated us in this task, most notably Western Nations. These ideals, which we hold to be universally good, are the birthright of not just Americans, but all humans. We are better because we strive to follow these goodly goals.
So, why shouldn't you believe everything that you see? Because, the real undercurrent is obscured from all but the most observant. The moral relativist sees the American exceptionalist as a deadly threat, and seeks to discredit him. The moral neutralist smugly derides the absolutist as naive and uncouth. But, their way is dangerous and polluted. This person accepts the way things are in the world, and believes what the tyrant's propagandist says. This person wants to weaken America, since it is not permissible for others to make judgements. They delude what true evil is by calling lesser evils by their greater names. The most common form of this is calling American political leaders Nazis. Instead of just painting them with a black brush, it deludes the true evil of the Nazis. In no way has any American leader been ever on par with the Nazis, not even close.
This corruption is everywhere, and it is in the very things that you see and read. It is not all bad news though. Some reject relativism, and see things like freedom and democracy (an additional logical framework derivived from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) as better. They know that there is evil in the world, and that there is good. You can separate the two. There is a battle for the shining city, and all it takes to win is for a few good people to polish its doors, and change a few lightbulbs every now and then. Let's roll.