Tough choices

Democracy is a messy business, someone observed. There are good examples of this floating around these days.

One thing that makes it tough is the "herding cats" aspect. As in: look how we struggle against the politics of business interests and political pandering in trying to do anything about the environment and climate change. Meanwhile, China, with its central control has leaped way ahead, not only in making necessary changes, but in taking the lead in manufacturing wind turbines, for example. They didn't have to face the Koch brothers' billions backing the fringe right, who are determined to bring down Obama and any progressive movement; and they didn't have an opposition party who sees political advantage in catering to people's fears. They just did it.

I'm not saying, given everything, I would swap our imperfect democracy for their government. But some things are easier for them. Of course, doing bad things to people and to society is also easier -- and that's not good.

The other thing on my mind that is tough in democracy is that we are so often faced with having to choose between two values or two principles, rather than obvious good/bad, right/wrong decisions. Several good examples of this:

1. Whether to support dictators in the Middle East, who have been allies in the past, to help stabilize the area (like Mubarak) or who control vast resources we need (like Libya) or provide military bases for us (like Bahrain). Or whether to side with a populist movement for democracy. Why wouldn't we just side with democracy? Sometimes it's the risk that another, worse dictator or terrorist group will take advantage of the instability and seize power. Not always easy choices for the administration.

We armchair warriors can sit here and say, of course, side with democracy. We don't have the responsibility of weighing all the facts and taking the consequences. Still, my gut feeling was negative when I read last night that the Obama administration had a new strategy: focus on "regime alteration" rather than "regime change."

What does that mean? Rather than immediately toppling autocratic allies, encourage the revolt leaders to work with regimes that are willing to make changes they are demanding. That feels like appeasement and wrong, yet it is practical, and could avoid the instability that risks unwanted, worse groups seizing power.

2. Another is the Supreme Court decision this week on the Westboro Baptist Church's free speech rights to make vile anti-gay protests at funerals, including funerals of non-gay, fallen soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. My head says, yes, free speech is free speech, even when you abhor the message. My heart says funerals should protected as private time for families. Is there a principle that could encompass both?

The answer, of course, has to be for free speech (short of the shouting-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater" exception) -- and for countering abhorrent speech with better speech. And, as already is the case, protest can be regulated by local ordinances -- providing a space removed from the actual church/cemetary itself. And others can interpose themselves to shield them visually or to drown them out, as the bikers do at military funerals by revving up their motors.

The simplest solution for the Westboro crowd, however, would be to ignore them. They don't travel half way across the country to protest before a few hundred mourners. They do it to draw the media and get splashed on national TV. The more outrageous their signs, the more coverage. Solution: ignore them, don't film them, don't mention them in the paper. Just don't.

Ralph