Polls have become a facet of social life. Within minutes after something major has occurred, a poll is available concerning what people thought about the matter. This is already silly enough; for with the exception of victories in the sports arena, it is rare that an immediate reaction to an event is a mature one—a reaction that will withstand critical scrutiny and reflection. Quite often, then, it turns out that what 59% of the American people thought immediately after an event, is not what 59% think 3 months later. So on-the-spot polls are really rather foolish, a way of giving the impression that one is offering some truly meaningful information when for the most part nothing of the sort is true. The information provided in an on-the-spot poll is about as secure as a bed of quick sand. Such polls are an annoyance. Unfortunately, there is also something deeply troubling about all of this.
What is troubling is that polls have suddenly become the criterion by which we determine whether a given course of action is right or wrong. Astonishingly, a great many people seem to think that if enough people believe an action is all right, then it is. So it was reported that something like 79% of the American people believed that Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to die as if this prevailing opinion thereby constituted a moral truth. Again, there is the thought that whether abortion is right or wrong is simply a matter of how many people think one way rather than the other.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of history should be stupefied that this line of thought has become so prevalent.
Rightly, we look back at Brown vs Board of Education with much admiration, and as a turning point in American race relations. But that extraordinary decision was a very unpopular one with the majority of the population. Morality-by-poll-taking would surely have yielded the contrary outcome. And, of course, ending slavery would have been a moral toss up, with half thinking one way and the other half thinking the opposite way. Morality-by-poll-taking would have left the American society a very unjust one.
Or, consider the early struggle for sexual equality. Initially, not only did most men find sexual equality an absurd notion, but a great many women scoffed at the idea as well. Unlike racial equality, where blacks wanted to eliminate social differences between themselves and whites, women actually wanted their to be certain social differences between themselves and men. There were roles for women and there were roles for men. Moreover, a certain measure of subordination and servile dependence was seen to be par for the course. Accordingly, it was even thought natural that women should be paid less than a man, though both did the exact same work. And it was supposed that anyone with basic commonsense could see that this was how things should be. Once more, morality-by-poll-taking would have left society an unjust one. As an aside, morality-by-poll-taking has resulted in the absurd view that women and men are exactly alike except for a few differences in anatomical parts.
As obvious as it is that the founding authors were mistaken in some of their moral judgments regarding social equality, they were absolutely right abut one thing, namely that there are fundamental rights that cannot ever be a matter of popular opinion. Indeed, they understood that the very sanctity and security of both society and its citizens are equally tied to this truth. Of course, moral change is inevitable. But moral change constitutes moral progress only insofar it sits upon a firm foundation of reason and not just mere sentiment. To be sure, there can be victories based upon fugacious feelings, but these will invariably be Pyrrhic ones. As Dr. Laura Schlessinger has rightly noted, the refusal to make judgments where judgments are appropriate has resulted in more harm than good.
Morality-by-poll-taking, then, is a curse rather than a blessing. It is a way of spiraling into a moral abyss, precisely because it is a pretense at social unity based upon ephemeral feelings rather than reason. It is an undeniable truth that feelings can be manipulated. Indeed, one of the most evil men in history, namely Adolph Hitler, was a master at manipulating feelings. If this is right, then morality-by-poll-taking, far from being a sign of our unity and vitality, is a poignant indication of how vulnerable we as a nation have become. Alas, it may very well be that our vulnerability has rendered us too numb to see our own demise in the making.
