We and They: The Polarization of America 7 comments

30 Mar 2006 @ 08:03, by D Goya: Fight with Cudgels [detail]. 1820-1823 – Oil on plaster – 48 1/4" inches x 104 1/2 inches – Prado Museum, Madrid "Here are two men – possibly brothers – are shown fighting with heavy cudgels – slowly, rhythmically, as though they are driving a post. Their legs disappear into the ground, like Goya's Colossus, yet they appear wedded to the land and so their fight must be to the death. Bitter clashes between monarchists and liberals in northern Spain at this time imply that Goya may have intended this painting as an allegory of civil war." ----Patricia Wright, Eyewitness Art "Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them." --- Peter Ustinov "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't." ----Robet Benchley, American Humorist "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ----A. Maslow According to Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays: "To be conservative, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. Familiar relationships will be preferred to the allure of more profitable attachments; to acquire and enlarge will be less important than to keep, to cultivate, and enjoy; the grief of loss will be more acute than the excitement of novelty or promise. It is to be equal to one’s fortune, to live at the level of one’s own means, to be content with the want of greater perfection which belongs to itself and one’s circumstances. With some people this is itself a choice; in others it is a disposition which appears, frequently or less frequently, in their preferences and aversions, and is not self chosen or specifically cultivated." By and large, I do prefer the unknown to the familiar, the untried to the tried, the possible to the factual, the unbounded to the limited, the distant to the near, the superabundant to the sufficient, the perfect to the convenient, and I value the utopian bliss just as much as the present laughter. So, I am not sure what that makes me, but I guess that as per Michael Oakeshott's standards, it apparently doesn't qualify me as a conservative. The funny thing is that I’ve never thought of myself as a "liberal" either. I don’t believe that America can be so simplistically divided along such lines. I want to believe there is more to America than this artificial imbecilic "if you are not with us you are against us" blue hat - red hat division, conservatives vs. liberals, Republicans vs. Democrats, "we" vs. "they." I've never really thought of myself as a conservative, but I’ve never really thought of myself as a liberal either. As a matter of facts I've a profound distrusts of any such labels and of the “divide and conquer” hyper-labeling ideologies which spawn them. I agree, at times, with SOME liberal principles and I do agree, at other times, with SOME conservative principles. I don’t believe either that anyone in America, Republican or Democrat, wants to starve children, kill old people or destroy the environment. Where does the division come from, then? And who is exacerbating the divide? Who will rather create enemies and accentuate stereotypical images rather than discuss problems and issues. Who write these jokes: You might be a Democrat if You might be a Republican if Who dumbs down the debate on almost every issue? Who is killing any genuine political debate? Who write such inane stuff. Who ask questions like this: Should a Christian be a Republican or a Democrat? Who say stuff like this: Being Pro-America Makes You Anti-Democrat! I do not believe either that disagreeing with a conservative policy, position or agenda makes one unpatriotic or even "liberal." In an article named the View from my window, I recently ran into, the author, Darren Stansbury, comments on the scarecrow that has been made of the word "liberal": 1: A subversive pagan who engages in or encourages sexual debauchery and wants Christianity abolished, all churches razed, all Bibles confiscated and burned, the Anti-Christ for president, public orgies, homosexual love festivals, a porn shop on every corner and pot, coke and crystal meth sold in pharmacies. 2: An America-hating, child-coddling, vegetarian, anti-business environmentalist who is either an atheist, Unitarian Universalist or an adherent of a polytheistic faith. See also: Satan Incarnate. And denounces how this kind of rhetoric has taken away from some of the debates that are no longer taking place in America as a result: "I believe in fair hiring, housing, lending and education, fair business practices and in occupational safety standards, and don't want to drink, eat or breathe poison anymore than anyone else. I also believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance and sacrifice. What sane person would oppose these principles? So, if my views must be labeled I guess you could say they're moderate. I happen to disagree with our current president leadership style--brash and irresponsible. I also disagree with much of his policies and agenda--seemingly driven by an appalling and alarming ignorance of history and the world. Bush seems to have taken the war in Iraq and his re-election as a carte blanche to do as he pleases. Exhibit A is the recently disclosed domestic wiretapping--which sounds much like the FBI's 'Countelpro' wiretapping of activists in the '60s. Can you say ‘abuse of power?’" While mailing a letter earlier on, this month, looking at the picture of the American Flag and the Statue of Liberty on the stamp I had put on the envelope, many of those issues flooded my mind and my heart. I have never given much thought about what stamp I buy of use on my mail. So, why the emotional upset? Was it the flag on the stamp? The Statue of Liberty? Or was it what had been made of them----not what they were intended to stand for, but what they have been turned into. Was it what I heard a dear friend’s mother, who was visiting from Nevada, say about San Francisco and most of our coastal cities, and how she couldn’t care less if they were, in her own words, to "providentially fall into the Ocean," and how "there are people and things going on over there that respectable folks do not approve of." This was so unlike her. How did she come up with something like that? Who had she been listening to? Who had been poisoning her mind thus? Is it what this country has come to? Is it the kind of stuff the good people of the heartland are fed when they go to church, listen to the radio or watch TV? I love my Flag and my country. I love the Statue of Liberty. When I see that picture, I still feel thankful to be an American. I still feel that it is a wonderful country that I was fortunate to be born in. I'm still thankful. Yet when I see that same flag on a bumper sticker on the back of a pick-up truck driven by some proud redneck (the word can be used either as a pejorative or as a matter of pride, depending on context) who has swallowed the nonsense he has been spoon-fed for years---the kind of nonsense leading to the kind of hatred that has been dividing this country---then I'm upset at what has been made of the flag. I'm upset at the same thing that has been upsetting me all my life---ignorance, stupidity and bullish aggressiveness. I'm upset at people taking advantage of other people’s ignorance, fears or prejudice. Standing on the deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop famously said, "We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us…" I'm sadden that we who are so lucky have failed in being that city upon a hill. I am sadden that we have not used the good hand, that we have been dealt, to take our place as a responsible and inspiring member of the global community and show the way in addressing the dire needs of the world we live in. I am sadden that instead of crossing the bridge to the 21st century, and looking toward the future and laying the foundations of a new and better way of doing things, we have turned back to repeat and compound the mistakes of the past. We are blessed with what used to be a perfect climate, plenty of fresh air, fresh water, not too hot, not too cold. We have a population made up of people from all over the globe, each bringing a different perspective, different education, different culture--a mix that has made our population rich culturally. We still have the best technology, the best opportunities for our people, the knowledge and ability to make the best possible lives for our citizens---and to help others. Are we like the spoiled rich kid who has no concept of just how lucky she is and proceeds to squander her fortune? Are our leaders so entrenched in maintaining their power and schmoozing the system, that they haven't got a clue what a vision is, much less come to one of their own? Isn't there anyone who can sit on top of an American mountain and clearly see and say what they see? If it were I sitting on that mountain, I would see what I no longer see--clear air, fresh water, family farms, healthy people, good people, people who could get a job even if they didn't have an education, people who could get an education even if they didn't have any money, people who were not addicted to cocaine, heroine or some other harmful drug, people who did not depend on some pill, legal (like Prozac or Ritalin) or illegal, to get them through the day. Was America the beautiful but a dream, or have I just been this whole time under the spell of some monumental brain-wash? I don't know. What I know is that we are squandering our wealth, and, most precious of all, we are squandering our human resources, and the wealth of the planet we live on. We have the means, the know-how, the capacity to house our people, feed our children, take care of our sick, employ our able, educate everyone, clean our house, take better care of the planet, and generally be a wonderful country. I do not believe that one American, blue state or red state alike, does not share that same faith. So, who has been poisoning America? Who does the promotion of prejudices that accentuate stereotypical images profit? Who is supporting all the divisive propaganda? Is there a precedent? Who supported---even organized and funded---militant Islamic radical groups dating back to the early cold war and peaking with the furious anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980 Who supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1950s to circumvent Egyptian pan-Arabism? Who courted the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, after the failed and misguided attempt to support the Shah---figuring Iran's fundamentalists would be tough on communism and a bulwark against the Soviets? Who supported the ultraorthodox Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia? Who used the Hamas to drive a wedge in the secular PLO? Who supported the Jihads in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden? Who supplied Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings? Who saw the rise of a religious Right in the middle-East in general as a way to contain left-leaning ideologies, on one hand, and pan-Arabism on the other? Who were the pushers who promoted (Islamic) religious fundamentalism, then, in the Middle East? Who are the pushers who are promoting (Christian) religious fundamentalism, now, in the USA? Who are the pushers who are selling the concept of a "war of civilization" today in the world? Who are the pushers who are promoting the concept of a "culture war" here at home? Who does the polarization of America profit? ===================================================================== Previous Related Entry: We And They Imagination vs. Pride & Nationalism

7 comments

---

Your Name:
Your URL:	(or email)
Subject:
Comment:
	For verification, please type the word you see on the left: