|
TODAY'S TOPIC:
Societal Versus
Political Divisions
by
Natalia J. Garland
Print Version
|
Social justice is no longer the cause that it used to be in the
1960's. Although there are still problems in America with racism,
sexism, and poverty, we have made great strides through
legislation and attitude to reduce both the severity and the
number of these problems. Yet, some presidential candidates seem
to be re-opening past wounds and feelings by focusing again on
these issues, as though we were still living in the pre-Civil
Rights era. This focus, combined with the polarized views on the
Iraq War and immigration reform, seems unnecessarily divisive.
In campaign speeches
and debates we hear phrases such as there are two Americas
(i.e., rich and poor), or there are quiet riots in the
African-American community (i.e., rage waiting to burst out), or
if I knew then what I know now about the Iraq War (i.e., I
was lied to), or the war on terror is a bumper sticker
(i.e., the politics of fear and not a real issue), or any bill
is better than no bill, (i.e., hurry up, vote, and don't
study the details). These remarks divide society: between rich and
poor, blacks and whites, liberals and conservatives, citizens and
immigrants, and so on.
Instead of
reflecting the current needs of a divided society, politics itself
is creating divisions between groups of people and obscuring the
more crucial issues of our time. Fringe or extremist political
groups have become powerful lobbyists in this process, seemingly
to carry on the struggle for equality and social justice.
Although the political messages are expressed with all the
stylistic fervor of the 1960's, the messengers have become
hardened in the formation of a political correctness for the
2000's--a hardness unknown to their flower children predecessors,
but very much a part of the automaton culture against which the
flower children rebelled.
Yesterday's
counter-cultural revolutionist is today's politically correct
conformist. Even among younger politicians and activists, there
seems to be a backward-focused search for identity. There is a
turning back to a time when social injustice was blatant and
institutionalized, and everyday people could achieve a sense of
self-respect in the struggle for equality for all. It is, so to
speak, an old-fashioned view of America. Moreover, the related
old-fashioned behavior is not felt as corny, embarrassing, or
irrelevant, but as essential to maintaining a cohesive self in an
ever-changing and increasingly dangerous world.
Today's activists
must have an obvious cause, and the cause is what provides
personal identity and purpose, as well as a political platform.
If there is no real cause--because the causes are generally
resolved, or laws are in place by which to resolve them--then a
new cause will be created (e.g., illegal immigration as a civil
rights issue), or the remnant of an old cause will be magnified
(e.g., prisoners' rights and the over-emphasis on the Abu Ghraib
scandal), or a dead cause will be resurrected, (e.g., taking
separation of church and state to the point of removing Christmas
trees from an airport).
The urgent problems
of our time are overshadowed by narrow questions with predictable
answers. Did you support the Iraq War? Did you vote for or
against funding the surge in Iraq? What is your view on abortion?
Why were you for abortion in the past, but against it now? Why
did you raise taxes? How does your faith affect your political
decisions? What would you say to a mother whose son was killed
in Iraq? What was the worst mistake you ever made?
There are extreme
problem areas that are not receiving adequate attention. (1)
Homeland security and the war on terror as a long-term effort. (2)
Immigration reform based on factual data, humanitarian values, and
enforcement. (3) Healthcare (including drug addiction which is
related to drug trafficking which, in turn, is related to homeland
security). (4) Education (including student safety). (5) Criminal
justice (including gang violence). (6) America's infrastructure
(bridges, dams, roads) which is in dire need of repair and
replacement.
Some of these issues
may have a connection to the old social justice issues of the
1960's and 1970's, but now they are primary issues within
themselves. These complicated issues affect all American citizens.
These are not issues of right and wrong; but of effectiveness,
efficiency, technology, philosophy, procedure, distribution,
management, knowledge, information, safety, protection, tenacity,
experience, creativity, innovation, discussion, cooperation,
collaboration.
If we would focus
on our urgent problems, then we could unite as solution-finding
partners. All of us--Americans of different races and cultural
heritage, different ages and occupations, men and women--could
work together. This would mean facing the contemporary world
with all its horror and its opportunity, and expanding identity to
embrace new challenges in problem-solving. America has changed
dramatically since the 1960's, and change--even good change--can
be a difficult adjustment for some people. Nonetheless, West Side
Story is over. Woodstock is over. The Yellow Submarine is over.
It's history. Let's move forward. America still needs people who
care, but in a different way.
Another example of
the narrowing down of complicated issues can be found in the case
of presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani. He takes a strong
position against terrorism--which appeals to many conservatives;
but he also accepts abortion as a woman's right--which repels
many conservatives. Some religious conservatives have said they
will not vote for him based on their objection to the issue of
abortion. It is a matter of conscience and adherence to religious
doctrine. That's understandable. But, let's put forth a
hypothetical situation. What if Giuliani could save America from
terrorism? Which would be the greater sin? (1) To vote against
the candidate in order to save unborn babies, while America is
destroyed by terrorists. (2) To vote for the candidate and save
America, and save the unborn babies of the future and provide a
free society for them.
If people really
cared about racial equality, why not use the examples of Governor
Richardson and Senator Obama, both of whom are presidential
candidates and also biracial, to illustrate racial harmony and
career success? Governor Richardson is the son of a white father
and a Hispanic mother. Senator Obama is the son of a black father
and a white mother. Yet, in their campaigns they seem to identify
as Hispanic and black, respectively. It is said that Senator
Obama would be the first black president. Governor Richardson
would be a good choice for vice president under Hillary Clinton:
the first woman president and the first Hispanic vice president.
Nobody looks at either of the above two men as the first biracial
president. Why are their racial and cultural mixtures not
regarded as positive attributes? Why is this not used to
demonstrate tolerance and express appreciation of America's
melting-pot?
If we were able to
sit with some of these politicians and activists in a therapy
session, we would probably find they possess narcissistic,
passive-aggressive, or even antisocial personality traits. And,
perhaps we would be surprised to find dependency, not as a
personality trait, but as a political lifestyle arrangement.
There seems to be an utter dependence on a cause around which to
organize a lifestyle, as a way of being in society, and as a means
of having a purpose. This quality of dependence might explain the
trait of inadequacy found in today's politically correct segment.
In addition, their cause must be connected to a scapegoated
authority figure such as the President of the United States or the
Pope, or to a broad grouping of people such as the religious right
or the military (nowadays, focusing on the military personnel
accused of torturing war prisoners).
The focus on a
scapegoat enables some political leaders to avoid responsibility
for solving the current crucial issues, and to divert attention
from their own intellectual impotence. This is where the
activists of the 2000's differ sharply from those of the 1960's.
Ideally, the activists of the 1960's wanted to unite Americans in
peace and love rather than to split them into irreconcilable
factions, and to exorcise America of social injustice rather than
to blame America for every occurrence of life's random unfairness.
Today's activists seem to want to take our social unity and
fragment it again, re-creating the conditions of the pre-Civil
Rights era, in order to feel comfortable with their outdated level
of problem-solving abilities. The current divisive tactics,
although borrowing the forms of a previous generation, are a
mutant and inferior variety of activism. There can be no
fulfillment of purpose, because this would destroy the raison
d'être of the participants: a fate worse than death by
terrorism.
[NOTE: Certain
presidential candidates and/or their slogans were mentioned for
illustrative purposes only. The author neither supports nor
rejects these candidates. This essay is not intended to serve
as a statement on any candidate's campaign, moral character, or
mental stability. This essay is a work in progress, not a
finished product, and is therefore subject to error. The ideas
expressed are based on personal observation and opinion, and are
not intended to carry official diagnostic value.]
(Written 06/11/07: bibliography available.)
Until we meet
again....... .......stay sane.
|
