[PEN-L:1878] Re: Hopeful Signs of Polarization

["Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

     If the outcome of this polarization in Israel is a
further entrenchment of power by the extreme Right, then it
is nothing to cheer about.
Barkley Rosser
On Wed, 23 Dec 98 17:11:36 -0500 Robert Naiman
<naimanr@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> "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
> -------------------------------
>

--
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
rosserjb@xxxxxxx