[PEN-L:1859] Hopeful Signs of Polarization

[Robert Naiman <naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"On the Left"
Robert Naiman
Sunday Journal
December 27, 1998

Hopeful Signs of Polarization

Human rights activist Israel Shahak says of the political situation in
Israel, "There are hopeful signs of polarization."

The statement seems ridiculous. Isnt polarization always bad? Shahaks
statement makes sense when you know that he opposes the policies of the
Israeli government to destroy Palestinian houses and confiscate Palestinian
land in the West Bank. Since these policies have historically been supported
by both major Israeli political parties, the possibility that this consensus
is breaking down would be a hopeful sign.

Here in the U.S., commentators wring their hands over "partisanship" and
"gridlock" as if everyone should be horrified if politicians dont get
along, or strongly advocate opposing positions.

But a moments reflection suggests that consensus is only good if the things
we agree on are good. If most politicians agree on something bad, like
monkeying around with our Social Security system which doesnt need fixing,
then what we need is not more consensus but more disagreement.

Consider some lessons from our own history. We are told that the nation was
"bitterly divided" during the Vietnam War. Was that bad? Only if you think
that people should support government policies like lambs, even when those
policies are deeply immoral and destructive. But of course that is morally
absurd. The pundits, who often slavishly support foreign military
misadventures, are wrong. In this case the Bible offers a far saner
approach: "Never follow a multitude to do evil." The fact that our
government needlessly caused the deaths of millions of people in that war is
a cause for national shame. But the fact that popular protests in the United
States hastened the end of the war and saved many lives is something of
which we should be proud.

Or reaching further back in our history, consider the issue of slavery. In
the early 1800s, there was a kind of "national consensus" -- reflected in
the compromises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution --
that slavery in the South should be tolerated in the interests of national
unity. The Abolitionists set out to break that consensus.

If you visit the striking museum in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, you can
see the story of one such Abolitionist -- John Brown. In our history books
in school, we were taught that John Brown was a lunatic. But looking at the
American political landscape, John Brown saw hopeful signs of polarization,
which he wished to increase. "Moderate" Abolitionists argued that the
country would gradually evolve away from slavery. Brown wanted to force the
liberals to take a stand for the immediate end of slavery. Moreover, he
thought that black people could be the agents of their own freedom. The
daring raid he and other Abolitionists -- black and white -- organized on
the arsenal at Harpers Ferry was, in military terms, a total disaster. But
in its political impact it was a success. The executions of Brown and his
co-conspirators galvanized anti-slavery opinion. Moderates were brushed
aside.

Knowing this history, what are we to make of all the blather about
partisanship? If different political parties dont advocate different ideas,
what use are they? The father of modern punditry, Walter Lippman, may give
us some insight. Lippmans idea of the ideal election was one in which two
candidates advocated basically the same position. Many pundits, like
Lippman, identify with big corporations and the military. Nothing annoys
them more then "demagogues" like Ralph Nader who fan the flames of
discontent by questioning policies like NAFTA, which are designed to benefit
big business at the expense of everybody else. When it comes to war or the
interests of multinational corporations, the "opinion leaders" prefer
consensus.

Now we do have quite a spectacle before us, with Congress impeaching the
President for lying about sex. Thats silly. But there is a silver lining.
The commentators howled in horror when Trent Lott and other senior
Republicans denounced the bombing of Iraq, even as it was taking place. Of
course the Republican criticism was tactical rather than moral -- they dont
care about dead Iraqi civilians any more than the White House. But what
outraged the pundits was that Lott and others "broke the rules" about
criticizing a military action while it was taking place. Who made that rule?
Is it better to wait until a senseless and brutal bombing campaign is over
before criticizing it, when its too late to have any impact?

Lotts criticism was a hopeful sign of polarization. Happy New Year!

-------------------------------
Robert Naiman <naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Preamble Center
1737 21st NW
Washington, DC 20009
phone: 202-265-3263
fax:   202-265-3647
http://www.preamble.org/
12/23/98 17:11:36
-------------------------------