The Age of Reaction


by Richard Sem - Date: 2007-01-23 - Word Count: 516 Share This!

"Fritos in the school vending machines! Are your children in peril?"

"A registered sex offender has moved into your town! Is it safe to leave your house?"

"Mouse droppings on the kitchen floor of an area eatery! Is disease spreading in our restaurants?"

"More after these messages."

The wonders of mass communications - 500 channels of television and every topic imaginable on the Internet - have brought with them a heightened sense of trepidation and paranoia. Many of us have lost any concept of relative risk and proportion and have shaped our opinions based upon emotional reactions to an overwhelming rush of horror stories. Furthermore, many of our rules, laws and judicial decisions seem to be based more upon reactions to the anxiety of the moment rather than upon rational analysis and decision making based upon the Constitution and the true purposes of government.

For example, when I was a boy I rode my bike for miles and took two city buses at night to Cub Scout meetings. Undoubtedly there were perverts back then, and we did receive the warnings not to talk to or "take candy" from strangers, but the concern was more measured and balanced. Today, children are kept under constant scrutiny and parents panic when their child is out of sight for a moment. Is the threat or perception of a threat greater today? Have perverts multiplied in recent years or has in-depth and sometimes hysterical media coverage biased our viewpoints?

It also seems to me that our beliefs, especially at the extremes of the discussions over the hot issues (e.g. abortion, war, immigration, gun control, capital punishment, etc.), are increasingly based upon emotion rather than reason. My friends who favor capital punishment, for example, typically use emotional language and points to justify executions. Such points include:

-"What if he did that to your wife or daughter?"

-"Someone who did something like that deserves to die."

-"Why should we pay to keep him or her in prison the rest of their life?"

-"The judicial system is flawed and he or she will be back on the streets before you know it."

-"He must pay for what he did."

-"We need to send a signal so others don't try that."

The government, which represents each of us, should not make policy, especially involving life and death, based upon such emotional arguments. The government's bottom-line responsibility in this case is to keep those who are convicted of horrendous crimes off of the streets, not to take revenge. Besides, they don't take into account the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of judicial decisions, the wild variations in eyewitness accounts, and the resultant likelihood that some percentage of persons executed were innocent. And there is no evidence that executions have any effect as deterrents.

The Moderate, then, must attempt, as much as possible, to stand back and examine the issues with a reasoned approach and perspective. What really is the risk and potential harm? What will the proposed law or rule really accomplish? What should be the government's role? How have the media, politicians and special interest groups biased and tainted the discussion? Is there a compromise position between the extreme (left and right) viewpoints?


Related Tags: moderate

Your Article Search Directory : Find in Articles

© The article above is copyrighted by it's author. You're allowed to distribute this work according to the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license.
 

Recent articles in this category:



Most viewed articles in this category: