A lot of people presume from my courses that I am a member of either the Republican or Democratic Party in the United States. In full disclosure, when I was 18, young, and foolish, I registered as a member of the Democratic Party, and it might be the case that my formal registration still says “Democrat” just due to the fact that I have been lethargic about updating it. As a general rule, I’d like to think that conservative students that I have believe I’m a conservative and liberal students believe I’m a liberal because of a commitment to reasonableness that makes me come off as an ally even in disagreement due to the my attempt to show proper respect to their arguments. In my interpretation of my own experiences with such things, people who hear their arguments treated as if they might actually be correct feel as though someone must “be of their kind.”
However, my commitments to a “kind” do not extend too much beyond the commitments of reasonableness in and of themselves (which one owes to everyone), nor do I see them having the need to do so. To quote my friend Robert Talisse,
A pragmatic deliberativism cannot be a politics of policy advocacy or a politics of the “Left” or “Right”; it must go beyond these categories, for they are blocks to inquiry.
With that in mind, here is why I am not a member of the Democratic Party. I cannot in good conscience belong to an organization that votes in favor of legislation such as the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (House Votes here/Senate Votes here) or the recent FISA reform bill that has passed the House of Representatives. Particularly given the insulting attempts by the Democratic Party at reason-giving in support of their “compromise.” In belonging to a state, the state will make grievous errors at times and I may not be able to exit for a variety of reasons, and so I must force to remain a member. I am under no such constraints with regards to a political party. I will not endorse a political party that does not seem to care whether or not we have progressed beyond a “Tower of London” politics.
It should go without saying, as the Republican Party initiated these bills, I cannot be a member of their party either. In fact, it is just as well. For writing objections, people like Julian Sanchez and Professor Lederman may one day face imprisonment for expressing their views against FISA reform. There is no reason to expect that this polity will continue to hold either public dissent or ex post facto laws in any sort of esteem if they cannot hold the right to a private conversation without legitimate justification as sacred. Things will not get better with more Democrats or with more Republicans. They will only get better if we can cultivate a more reasonable electorate and/or a more reasonable set of principles that politicians from both parties can congregate around and still secure enough votes to win.
Posted by stevenmaloney 
Posted by stevenmaloney 
