Step forward: we hear

That you are a good man.

You cannot be bought, but the lightning 

Which strikes the house, also

Cannot be bought.

You hold to what you Said.

But what did you say?

You are honest, you say your opinion. 

Which opinion?

You are brave.

Against whom?

You are wise.

For whom?

You do not consider your personal advantages.

Whose advantages do you consider then?

You are a good friend.

Are you also a good friend of the good people?

Hear us then: we know

You are our enemy. This is why we shall

Now put you in front of a wall. But in consideration of 

           your merits and good qualities

We shall put you in front of a good wall and shoot you

With a good bullet from a good gun and bury you

With a good shovel in the good earth.

-Bertolt Brecht "The Interrogation of the Good"

Politics=Polarization

Excuse this remarkably illogical statement and allow me to qualify it. Politics in any broad context, specifically targeting capitalist democracies, has inherent in its creation the need for minority and majority, of which the majority will have a say that the minority cannot approach outside of activism and civil disobedience. It empowers a group based on a utilitarian principal that it is the most numbers voting for the most good that can be done for those numbers and those who dissent practically or ideologically are pushed to the margins.

Politics=Polarization

Global politics takes this to an extreme that encompasses all of the human community, although we can talk less here about the hegemony of the majority than the hegemony of the pocketbook. The battle lines tend to be drawn along these patterns of hegemony, and, as it has been since the advent of the Polis, according to the desires of the opposing hegemon.

What am I saying, and why the beautiful poem? In short, for I don't have enough time to be eloquent and thorough in my stance on this particular topic, I want us to question which side of the wall we are on.

In circumstances of opposing practicality and ideology there are always two sides, what tends to mark our opinion is which narrative of which side we hear. These narratives are essential to our understanding of our particular orthodoxy (for that term exists as much in the dialogue of a Capitalist Democracy as it does in the Vatican) and these narratives serve to set us on our respective side of the wall.

I find lightning to be quite an interesting metaphor for Brecht's "Interrogation" we strike violently on impulse (emotional perhaps, not electrical) and though lightning's volition can be called into question we can rest well assured that without both narratives from both sides being heard our volition is as questionable as Zeus's. Volition stems from deliberation which comes from clear reflection on opposing viewpoints and then, with all information in hand, moving forward with a course of action. But let us be clear that deliberation is essential and should be handled with a patient and prayerful diligence. 

For this to be possible there must be an honest exchange of narrative, which, if there is any practicality in these ramblings it is this; we do not know both sides when we do not make an active effort to seek these narratives in equality, nor can we expect them to be provided handily for us. Our process before volition should be careful and informed, diligent and slow, with clear grasps of all opposing narratives before moving forward.

Without the information necessary to deliberation our volition is that of a spark falling from the heavens towards a house. We know our destination, but we know not which side of the wall we're on.