Even on a societal level, scandals can serve chiefly to distract us from more important
matters. For example, time will tell whether the Clinton sex scandal will benefit our political,
social, or legal system. Admittedly, the scandal did call our attention to certain issues of federal
law. It sparked a debate about the powers and duties of legal prosecutors, under the
Independent Counsel Act, vis-i-vis the chief executive while in and out of office. And the
various court rulings about executive privilege and immunity WIU serve useful legal
precedents for the furore. Even the impeachment proceedings xxhll no doubt provide useful
procedural precedent at some future time. Yet on balance, it seems to me that the deleterious
effects of the scandal in terms of the financial expense to taxpayers and the various harms to
the many individuals caught up in the legal process---outweigh these benefits. More
importantly, for more that a year the scandal served chiefly to distract us from our most
pressing national and global problems, such as the Kosovo crisis, our social-security crisis,
and health-care reform, to name just a few.
103
In sum, I agree that scandals often serve to flag important socio-political problems more
effectively than any speaker or reformer can. However, whether a scandal works more benefit
than harm to a community or society must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Issue 94
"Practicality is now our great idol, which all powers and talents must serve. Anything that is not
obviously practical has little value in today’s world."
In today’s world is practicality our idol---one which all powers and talents must serve. While
this claim has considerable merit with respect to most areas of human endeavor--including
education, art, and politics--I take exception with the claim when it comes to the direction of
scientific research today.
Practicality seems clearly to be the litmus test for education today. Grade-schoolers are
learning computer skills right along with reading and writing. Our middle and high schools are
increasingly cutting arts education, which ostensibly has less practical value than other course
work. And, more and more college students are majoring in technical fields for the purpose of
securing lucrative jobs immediately upon graduation. Admittedly, many college students still
advance to graduate-level study; yet the most popular such degree today is the MBA; after all,
business administration is fundamentally about practicality and pragmatism that is, "getting
the job done" and paying attention to the "bottom line."Practicality also dictates what sort of art is produced today. Most new architecture today is
driven by functionality, safety, and cost; very few architectural masterpieces find their way past
the blueprint stage anymore. The content of today’s feature films and music is driven entirely
by demographic considerations--that is, by pandering to the interests of 18-35 year olds, who
account for most ticket and CD sales. And, the publishing industry today is driven by
immediate concern to deliver viable products to the marketplace. The glut of how-to books in
our bookstores today is evidence that publishers are pandering to our practicality as well. It
isn’t that artists no longer create works of high artistic value and integrity. Independent record
labels, filmmakers, and publishing houses abound today. It’s just that the independents do not
thrive, and they constitute a minuscule segment of the market. In the main, today’s real-estate
developers, entertainment moguls, and publishing executives are concerned with practicality
and profit, and not with artistic value and integrity.
Practicality is also the overriding concern in contemporary politics. Most politicians seem
driven today by their interest in being elected and reelected that is, in short-term survival
rather than by any sense of mission, or even obligation to their constituency or country.
Diplomatic and legal maneuverings and negotiations often appear intended to meet the
practical needs of the parties involved minimizing costs, preserving options, and so forth.
Those who would defend the speaker might claim that it is idealists--not pragmatists who
sway the masses, incite revolutions, and make political ideology reality. Consider idealists
such as the America’s founders, or Mahatma Gandhi, or Martin Luther King. Had these
idealists concerned themselves with short-term survival and immediate needs rather than with
their notions of an ideal society, the United States and India might still be British colonies, and
African-Americans might still be relegated to the backs of buses. Although I concede this point,
the plain fact is that such idealists are far fewer in number today.104
On the other hand, the claim amounts to an overstatement when it comes to today’s
scientific endeavors. In medicine the most common procedures today are cosmetic; these
procedures strike me as highly impractical, given the health risks and expense involved.
Admittedly, today’s digital revolution serves a host of practical concerns, such as
communicating and accessing information more quickly and efficiently. Much of chemical
research is also aimed at practicality--at providing convenience and enhancing our immediate
comfort. Yet, in many other respects scientific research is not driven toward immediate
practicality but rather toward broad, long-term objectives: public health, quality of life, and
environmental protection.
In sum, practicality may be our idol today when it comes to education, the arts, and politics;
but with respect to science I find the claim to be an unfair generalization. Finally, query whether
the claim begs the question. After all, practicality amounts to far more than meeting immediate
needs; it also embraces long-term planning and prevention aimed at ensuring our future
quality of life, and our very survival as a species.
Issue 95
"It is easy to welcome innovation and accept new ideas. What most people find difficult,
however, is accepting the way these new ideas are put into practice."
The speaker maintains that it is easy to accept innovation and new ideas, yet difficult to
accept how they are put to use. In my view the speaker has it backwards when it comes to
socio-political ideas, at least in our democratic society. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with the
speaker insofar as scientific innovation is concerned.
In the areas of politics and law, new ideas are not often easily accepted. More often than not,
the status quo affords people a measure of security and predictability in terms of what they can
expect from their government and what rights and duties they have under the law. The
civil-fights movement of the 1960s aptly illustrates this point. The personal freedoms and rights
championed by leading civil-rights leaders of that era threatened the status quo, which
tolerated discrimination based on race and gender, thereby sanctioning prejudice of all kinds.
The resulting civil unrest, especially the protests and riots that characterized the late 1960s,
was dear evidence that new ideas were not welcome. And today those who advocate gay and
lesbian rights are encountering substantial resistance as well, this time primarily from certain
religious quarters.
Yet once society grows to accept these new ideas, it seems that it has an easier time
accepting how they are put into practice. The explanation for this lies in the fact that our
system of laws is based on legal precedent. New ideas must past muster among the
government’s legislative, judicial, and executive branches, and ultimately the voters, before
these ideas can be codified, implemented and enforced. Once they’ve passed the test of our
democratic and legal systems, they are more readily welcomed by the citizenry at large.
In contrast, consider innovations in the natural sciences. It seems that we universally
embrace any new technology in the name of progress. Of course there are always in formed
dissenters with legitimate concerns. For example, many scientists strongly opposed the
Manhattan Project, by which nuclear warfare was made possible. Innovations involving
alternative energy sources meet with resistance from those who rely on and profit from fossil
105
fuels. Some sociologists and psychologists claim that advances in Internet technology WIU
alienate society’s members from one another. And opponents of genetic engineering predict
certain deleterious social and political consequences.