Of babies and bathwater

No, this isn’t a post about the Royal Baby.

It’s a post about a type debate I get into regularly, for which I have no real conclusion. For which I am interested in the conclusions others reach. It is a question I find myself asking more and more frequently as I get older and see my heroes flaws and my enemy’s strengths. The question is this: Is there anything to be learned from the successes of societies, groups or individuals we find reprehensible?

For example, are the successes in literacy rates and healthcare costs in Cuba impossible without democratic repression? Or can we learn what is exportable from Cuba without exporting what goes against our values.

Can we learn from the openness promoted by Wikileaks without supporting either irresponsible revelations of people who could be endangered or the megalomania of Julian Assange?

Are there areas of policy or presentation we can learn from the Tories without accepting wholesale their approach to the state and to public policy?

Can atheist societies learn anything from religious communities? What could the pro-interventionists and the anti-war left learn from each other? Can left and right find common ground and common cause?

Many – depending on thier own set of beliefs – will have very strong feelings about these questions. Some on the left will believe that including Cuba is a false analogy, those on the right may believe the same about liberal intervention. But could this rigidity of thought that allow our own development to atrophy? Aren’t those who challenge us often more useful voices than those who bolster us as they keep us sharp and able to focus on our arguments?

One of the criticisms of the American led Iraq war coalition was of the simplistic “My enemy’s enemy is my friend” approach to colalition building. Equally, those who oppose American hegemony ally themselves with equally questionable groups and individuals for exactly the same reason. Should we judge a person by their friends and a nation by their allies? Or should we be pragmatic and deal with all who will deal with us on an issue by issue basis?

My pragmatic brain wants to say that we should always opt for the latter. That it is issues and outcomes that count. But I’m not sure this factors in human nature. We are more likely to trust friends. We are less likely to believe something coming from someone we know to have previously done wrong. Our allies are not all we are but they are a part of the choices we make. We will have to recognise that we will be judged on these choices and act accordingly.

But I don’t want to avoid good ideas from bad sources. Can there be a way to negate or at least test the good and leave behind the bad? Can we keep the baby while throwing out the bathwater?

This is a blog full of questions, not answers. I don’t know the answers. I don’t know that such answers are possible – and I suspect those who have strong feelings on this will have them in equal and opposite directions. So I am asking you – good readers of LabourList – what do you think?