On reading the “Science” section of the NY Times this morning, I came across an interesting article about vaccination. Basically, it was about the misinformation surrounding vaccination, a subject that is becoming yet another hot topic in the 21st century panoply of social issues. It is a topic that doesn’t really have an answer as undoubtedly, there have been cases where vaccinations have been harmful. However, on a percentage basis, it is likely that such cases represent a very small number.
Having said the word percentages, however, I need to say that if I were a parent of a child adversely affected by a vaccination, I would not nearly be so sanguine. In the 18th century when inoculation, the precursor of vaccination, began to be adopted by the west, helped in great part by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu who saw inoculation in Turkish culture and decided to have it done to her children, there were rabid protests about the procedure. Lady Mary was subject to great abuse for her temerity.
The social issues that often dominate American politics will never be resolved. In fact, more and more will arise as time goes on. It would be simplistic to suggest that one side is right or wrong. They are competing views on how America should be. What I find so interesting is that there is no middle ground. There is no negotiation and no compromise. Can we live like this or will the American Tahrir Square, or worse, a Libya moment, pop up somewhere to shame us all? Our future awaits.
–
Do I really believe that there could be a revolt in this country on the level of Libya’s current tumult because of social issues? My answer is that you never know. The inflexibility of an agenda is a two edged sword. It can be a firm road map to the future that allows someone to take a principled non violent stand for what they believe in or it can be the path to glory for a self styled martyr.
There is an historical continuum, particularly when it comes to religion, of violence surrounding the supremacy of a group. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes to deny Protestants protection in France and Cromwell’s determination to eliminate all but the most elemental Protestantism are but a few such instances. Did the violence ever work?
Social issues are a ticking time bomb. Cultural populism, Newt Gingrich for example descrying the lack of faith in America, are extremely dangerous cards to play. George Orwell knew this and anyone who doesn’t should read his book, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. Yes, unfortunately, I do believe that social issues can lead to tremendous upheaval. And as for negotiation and compromise, I think social issues preclude such terminology. What a pity!
–
In a sense, negotiation and compromise are always limited in effectiveness because one side will always assume superiority. The truth is that time is a leveler and will ultimately negate any advantage. That is the long view. The short view may seem different, but it isn’t. Advantage is always temporary.
If Pope Clement VII had compromised with Henry VIII over his divorce, there may never have been a Church of England. The lack of compromise, principled or otherwise, created a schism. Was Clement correct to deny the divorce? What would he have said of our society where divorce is so common? Would he have relented? After all, Henry needed a legitimate heir.
So what do principle or compromise have to do with each other? It is hard to figure. In essence, compromise is a sense of reality of the future, rightly or wrongly. Principle, on the other hand, demonstrates a belief, even a kind of faith. Sometimes that faith is reality based and sometimes it isn’t. When it isn’t, it causes problems and when it is, it can be the fount of revolution. The trouble is in determining which is which.