Friday, January 14, 2005

An ethical dilemma

I mentioned the other day that most of my fellow writers are on the left of me. Well, I was with a group the other evening and am wondering if I violated some standards of civility or courage. Here's what's happened.

We finished our meeting, and the talk turned to other topics, namely politics. Stupid Bush. Not stupid but flawed. Bad Republicans, except one (unnamed, probably RINO). No bad Democrats. Republicans hateful. Democrats good. Etc. You know the drill.

My bad? I didn't say anything. I smiled politely and thought of it as an opportunity to gain a perspective I wouldn't get otherwise. I felt like a spy. If anyone had asked my opinion, I'd have answered the question honestly, but no one did, and everyone presumed that we were all at the same end of the political spectrum.

The teams were six on one side, one (me) on the other. I couldn't out-argue them, even if I were good at arguing. I made my case for Pres. Bush in this space in the run-up to the election, and I still think he's a decent man and possibly a great president, but I don't have any illusion that I could change anyone's political opinions, especially not those so deeply entrenched. I'd like to keep up a relationship with these people, something I'm not sure would happen if they knew my dirty little secret.

So tell me, my friends and fellow wanderers in the blogosphere, do I owe it to my friendly acquaintances to correct their presumption? In honest discourse, is one required to correct every (perceived) "error" of political analysis, especially when that's only a side topic -- or even to announce "I'm one of Them"?

No comments: