Perspective

Reformers in all areas: science, relgion, art, and especially politics/law are rarely recognized in their own day. Want to know how to get ahead of the curve, and recognize just causes before those causes suceed? Simply apply basic moral principles, consistantly.
 
Great reform, through history, comes when we broaden moral principles to include people and situations to which they had not formerly been applied. Principled opposition to slavery, for example, was based on the recognition that the word "men" in "all men are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, among them ... liberty" cannot just mean white men, and the end of slavery marked our willingness to bring our actions into compliance with this moral belief. The principles had existed, but the courage to act upon them rather than make excuses for the status quo took time. Other examples include the delcaration of independence itself, and the bill of rights, which had been formed based on just such an expansion of the application of moral principle, from nobility to commoners, and much later, to blacks and women. Each of these changes, in their turn, appeared to be drastic and unprecidented.
 
It is interesting to go back and read the arguments put forth for slavery at the time. Here's one, from pro-slavery apologist William Harper, in 1852:

"The institution of domestic slavery exists over far the greater portion of the inhabited earth. Until within a very few centuries, it may be said to have existed over the whole earth —at least in all those portions of it which had made any advances towards civilization. We might safely conclude then, that it is deeply founded in the nature of man and the exigencies of human society."

This is typical of the period. Others argued that slaves could not take care of themselves, that they were better off as slaves, or that the elimination of slavery was impossible and utopian. Now, from a modern perspective, these arguments seem foolish, as I've seen one person put it, more like rationalizations for evil behavior -- but at the time, the fear was very real. That same fear was present at the time of the american revolution, when one primary loyalist argument was that america was incapable of self government, or that political involvement by all classes would lead to chaos and disorder. Similar assertions were proffered when women were given the vote. These arguments were clearly not based on first principles, as much as fear of the unknown.

No matter how inevitable these changes appeared from the perspective of later generations, to recognize a systematic failing of society to live up to fundamental principles of right and wrong -- kindergarten morality -- and to have the courage to fight against that immorality is a frightening proposition. I laud those with the courage to take a peaceful stand, and efforts like CDEF, to support the individuals who do.
 
What is the next reform? Does any such widespread immoral behavior exist today, for which we are tempted to make exceptions to basic moral principles? I think this brings us back to the first part of the discussion. We recognize the basic moral principle that it is wrong to enslave a person -- to use a person's life, against their will, for one's own purpose. So, what of the draft? Is it immoral for a group or individual to force another to labor in a field, against their will, but not to force them to kill and die? We recognize the basic moral principle that it is wrong to steal. So, what of taxes? By what logic is it moral to extort money from a peaceful individual, who has not harmed anyone, by threatening to take their house away, or to throw them in jail?

Does the fact that a majority supports these acts make them moral? Yet, we recognize that if three men are hiking in the woods, and two of them vote to take the wallet of the third at gunpoint, that does not make the act any more moral. Does majority rule then only begin to justify formerly immoral violations of personal rights, when taken to a larger scale? Yet, we recognize that slavery was immoral, even when it was popular, and laud the efforts of Harriet Tubman, and others, who assisted slaves in escaping that evil.
 
I think this force is the main reason why political discussion is often so heated -- why it is often said that politics should not be discussed in polite company. It is because at the foundation of the discussion is really a threat. When we discuss whether or not to go to war, for example, it is not the same kind of discussion as to whether to invest in Microsoft, or which college to attend. If I believe an investment in Microsoft is wise, I may use my money to that end, and if you do not, you may choose another investment, or none at all. You may attend a different college, if you disagree with me, or none at all. What I am really saying if I were to argue that we should go to war, is that your money should be taken from you by force, by threat of jail or having your house taken from you, and used to that end -- and perhaps I will even eventually force you or your kid to go and kill and die for my war as well. No wonder a pacifist, or a person simply opposed to a particular intervention would react vehemently to such a suggestion! Similar threats underlie discussions of public welfare, medicine, etc. Instead of allowing people to make their own choices about what charities, what interventions, what economic actions, etc, they will support with their lives and finances, we are forced to squabble over single solutions which will be imposed on everyone.
 
Perhaps the threat of agressive (that is, non-defensive) violence is in fact immoral, whether I use it to force an innocent person to make life choices of which I approve, or to hand money over, to be used for purposes of which I approve. Perhaps we should allow people to be free to live their lives and use their money as they choose, so long as they do not act agressively against others. Perhaps, then, we can eliminate many of the problems inherent in giving a select group of individuals the power to use such agressive force, which not only corrupts, but often attracts the most power-hungry and corrupt among us. Perhaps, then, our local, state, and national political conversation will not have threats, force, and violations of personal rights at its foundation. It's an idea :) (and thanks for listening).