Moral or Moron Mondays

The term “discourse” is a rather scholarly term, but one worth understanding. At the basic level, it simply means a connected piece of speech or writing; but at a more substantial level, discourse is the orderly, interchange of ideas. The quality of our lives is determined to a great extent by the quality of

Discourse into the Night, William Blades (1891)

our discourse – our exposure to coherent and inspiring instruction, lively conversation with friends and family, useful ideas exchanged in the work place, coherent verbal entertainment and information through the media. Learning and living should include becoming more adept at both delivering and appreciating discourse. As we grow, we should learn how to talk to each other.

In politics, discourse is on a downward slide. There is no better evidence than the Monday protests in North Carolina’s capitol – Moral Mondays as the protesters prefer, Moron Mondays as one of the protested has proclaimed.

If you live in North Carolina and haven’t noticed the protests in Raleigh, then you live in a world of limited, but perhaps more pleasant, discourse. Various citizens (including ministers, professors, teachers and NAACP members) are voicing their displeasure with proposed reductions in income taxes, increases in sales taxes, reduction in unemployment compensation, reduction in spending on education and the rejection of expanded Medicaid eligibility.  The media is making a show of protest leaders being proudly handcuffed and escorted way by the gentle hands of police. The protesters claim that politicians controlling state government are failing their moral obligation to our most vulnerable and needy citizens.  While the protesters claim the moral high ground, the governing powers disagrees. Anger and revulsion are strong on both sides.

In an editorial to a local newspaper, Thom Goolsby, a Republican legislative leader, suggested the title Moron Mondays. Unfortunately, Goolsby’s discourse includes slurring people who disagree with him as clowns, carnival barkers and angry, former hippies. He only vaguely identified the moral counter-argument to the protesters that could be based on self-reliance, self-discipline and fiscal responsibility. He made little effort to engage in discourse.  I simply returned the insult.

In this blog on learning and living, I tread into this discourse tenderly.  But, again, learning and living is about talking to each other.

I generally agree with the positions of the protesters, but I strongly disagree with their titling strategy. Settling our economic and political beliefs should engage our moral sense of how to structure society; but in political discourse, “moral” is a loaded term that causes opponents to dig in their heels and makes potential supporters disengage. Arguing morality in a political forum is nasty business.  If you are a supporter of Moral Mondays, I suggest remembering how you were enraged for decades by the Moral Majority. Whose morality were they claiming? Certainly not mine. There is no greater way to disparage your political opponents than to claim their immorality. And once the claim is offered in a political forum, rationale discourse fades away.

The government in power always pursues its agenda. It gets elected to do that. In this case, the Republicans in North Carolina have been powerless in state government for a long time and they are not going to miss this opportunity to push their political agenda. To argue the morality of their agenda is, indeed, to forget the cronyism and corruption of Democratic administrations.  The best approach available to Democrats, for the time being, is to avoid the morality argument and disagree on more rationale terms. The rejection of the Medicaid component of the Affordable Care is going to cost North Carolina jobs at a time we can ill afford them. It will drive up the medical cost to the state for the 500,000 people who would have been covered by the expanded Medicaid, with less revenue to offset the costs. With a weak and underfunded educational system, the state cannot be competitive in a national and global economy. This more rationale approach to political discourse can be more dispassionately examined, and the morality of it can be inferred without having to proclaim the opposition as immoral.

The Republican approach to state government will undo itself if the loyal opposition does its job of organizing at the city and county level and finding intelligent, articulate and trustworthy people to run for office. Arguing morality on the streets of Raleigh only promotes the people being arrested and detracts from the task of organizing an effective opposition.

Political protests have been an American tradition and, in some cases, have eventually changed the direction of politics.  Done correctly, it can empower the protesters and their ideas. Done incorrectly, it weakens the discourse. Protest if you feel inclined. But if you continue to argue morality rather than economics, too many people will hear you, but will fail to understand the consequences of the current direction of government.