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

[Rosser Jr, John Barkley]

     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 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]