Writing a column is always educational. Readers chastise your grammar, they challenge your facts. You also learn about every shade of opinion – usually in reaction to your own. You discover, in this process, that some people are stuck in ideological goo. For example, in a column in which I never mentioned President Bush or the war in Iraq, I am assailed for supporting both. Or I am attacked for being a “shill” of neoconservatives, though I have never considered myself neo-conservative. The explanation for certain misunderstandings is obvious. Intelligent discourse in this country has been hampered by the brain-damaging effects of ideological presupposition, by the demonization of those who disagree, by an appalling eagerness for sweeping condemnation.
America is divided along ideological lines, and the division may be strategically significant. The Vietnam War provides an object lesson. There are people who violently oppose America’s military campaigns and thereby give aid and comfort to America’s enemy. There are also those who favor trade and economic policies that weaken national security. It is possible that someone analyzing national grand strategy with a view to long-term national survival cannot agree with either political party today.
America is ideologically divided, as I’ve noted, into two primary camps. One of these camps advocates the welfare state and would implement full socialism if given a sufficient mandate; the other camp talks about free markets and lower taxes, though it effectively supports the welfare state and ever-higher taxes as well – and is gradually headed in the direction of socialism. In other words, one camp is left of the center and the other is further to the left.
The problem with the ideological divide in America is not that the wrong side is winning. Both sides are wrong, both sides fail to understand the situation. And yet, the country begins to damage itself. The unity needed to face the present economic crisis and a rising totalitarian bloc is nowhere apparent. The problem is that ideological divisions reduce everything to a question of two sets of slogans, each side painting a caricature of the other, each side becoming a self-caricature. Intelligent discussion of political issues cannot take place. The vital business of formulating national strategy is reduced to a popularity contest. In fact, the media-driven process of choosing the American commander-in-chief is a frightening example of what’s wrong with our post-literate culture. Images on a TV screen with attending sound bites have entirely overtaken more serious considerations. The public has little interest and less tolerance for the tedious details of Middle East policy or economic science. It is easier to pick up a clever slogan, or obsess over an emotional issue that damages the nation’s wellbeing.
The present controversy over Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a case in point. The media is now flooded with the repetition of Rev. Wright’s argument that HIV-AIDS is a government plot to eradicate black people, plus his statement that God should “damn” America for its racism. I am not a supporter of Barack Obama, primarily because he holds a position common to Republicans: he supports the redistribution of income in the United States. That being said, the current attempt to derail or dismiss Obama’s campaign by associating it with the anti-American statements of Mr. Wright is counterproductive. What is objectionable from the perspective of national security is the dangerous example of leading the nation away from intelligent discussion toward political emotionalism. Making a perpetual issue out of Rev. Wright’s statements may even backfire; especially since there has been no serious attempt to challenge candidate Obama in an intelligent way – as he deserves.
What Rev. Wright said is not to be excused, of course. We may understand the anger of a black man who was born and raised when Jim Crow laws were in effect; we may sympathize with an oppressed minority, realizing that the pain of past injustice is a lingering pain; but slandering the government and the American people is not acceptable. The United States does not seek the eradication of non-whites. Such is a dangerous slander that shouldn’t be repeated. And yet, this slander is repeated, and much is made out of it. Obama’s rejection of the slander is passed over as the white majority now indulges its own feelings of outrage. Could this be good for race relations in America? Or is the handling of this controversy an effective way to open old wounds?
I am not a supporter of Barack Obama , but I respect the senator as a rare man of intelligence who deserves a hearing. And by way of protest I am going to finish this column by quoting Senator Obama’s worthiest sentiments – which may take you by surprise. The senator’s general message is national unity, and I agree with this message. To brush this message away with sound bites from Rev. Wright is a tragic error, bound to hurt the entire country. On page 47 of the senator’s book “The Audacity of Hope” he writes: “Democratic audiences are often surprised when I tell them that I don’t consider George Bush a bad man, and that I assume he and members of his Administration are trying to do what they think is best for the country.” Obama says that he shares President Bush’s values, even if he disagrees with Bush’s policies. According to Obama, “the amplification of conflict by the media all contribute to an atmosphere of suspicion.” He rightly suggests that this is not acceptable.
There is a further statement of Senator Obama that deserves to be repeated, and ought to form the background for our political discussions. On page 51 the senator writes: “Spend time actually talking to Americans, and you discover that most evangelicals are more tolerant than the media would have us believe, most secularists more spiritual. Most rich people want the poor to succeed, and most of the poor are both more self-critical and hold higher aspirations than the popular culture allows. Most Republican strongholds are 40 percent Democrat, and vice versa. The political labels of liberal and conservative rarely track people’s personal attributes.”
