Could the War Lead to Something Positive?
On the front page of Saturdays Oregonian an article called “War supporters feel adrift as tide turns” discussed the sentiments of a number of people who continue to support the war in Iraq. Among them, Elfriede Plumondore said of those who are protesting the war on Sunday, “I’d probably get into a verbal spat with them. I don’t think they’re all that intelligent, to be perfectly honest.” Another supporter, Wayne Brady, spoke at a public hearing on the Oregon Legislature’s proposed resolution urging speedier troop withdrawal. “I was disappointed that no one ever even bothered to ask me a question,” said Brady, “I just felt this thing was being rammed through with no opposition.” I immediately recognized these opinions: they were mirror images of concerns voiced by many critics of the war, three and four years ago when the war was at its height of support.
Elfriede’s substitution of intelligence level for a differing opinion is a typical sign of political polarization (used freely by both sides). On the other hand, those of us who have not lost a loved one in the war cannot begin to imagine the impact this experience has had on this mother’s life. And with only a little reflection it is easy to see how the emotional connection with staying the course can be made by those who wish to honor those loved ones who died serving their country.
To Wayne, who mentioned that "this thing is just being rammed through with no opposition." Welcome to the party. This opinion has been voiced by many since a “connection” was made between Afghanistan and Iraq, leading to our subsequent invasion.
My instinct is to look at the irony in this situation. Those who stood on the side of an administration who certainly rammed things through with no opposition, disregarding any dissenting opinions by taking full advantage of the tragedy of 9/11 and the GOP controlled House and Senate, now seeking out a reasonable voice of dissent, and dialogue.
Simply chalking a difference of opinion up to a lack of intelligence hits a little closer to home. I’ve always been one who rolls my eyes at those liberal catchphrases about intelligence (they seem to be the only opinion that can be expressed succinctly by a democrat), “A Republican is just a Democrat with their brain left out”. The divisiveness in this attitude rubs me the wrong way.
The bigger issue is that if we continue to allow polarization of opinions and a win-at-all-cost mentality to dominate our politics, the pendulum will continue to swing back and forth with each side taking its turn at bullying the other for its allotted time, and then complaining when being bullied.
Calling each other names and laying blame is nice for keeping ourselves snug in our own viewpoints. I can complain about the Bush administration, criticize every move they make, and wait for my turn to gloat at the next defeat of Republicans in the election. But this attitude does little in creating real dialogue that could lead to a deeper understanding on both sides.
Before I delve too deep into my “can’t we all just get along” speech, let me be clear about one thing. I don’t think it necessary for our bipartisan viewpoints to soften, or for ideals and goals on either side to be thrown out the window. What I do feel is essential is a move towards respect for the intelligence of individuals. And a willingness on both sides to listen and incorporate new and possible differing information into their way of looking at a particular issue. The necessity of dialectic-type conflict in our country is not something I want to dispute. But the essence of Hegel’s structure is that when two opposing ideas meet, they clash, brawl, beat each other up, but eventually the two opposing propositions create a synthesis or at the very least (or most in our hopeful case) a qualitative transformation in the direction original ideas.
With the hope of fresh ideas and real possibilities to ending this difficult conflict in the best way possible as the ultimate best case scenario. What is the drawback to such a concept? Well, for one, the old recess trick of, “Ha Ha, fooled you!” Comes to mind. And instead of a few embarrassing moments, political suicide could be the worst-case scenario.
But it’s time. And the pendulum’s swing identifies the Democrats as the party that must take that first step. By choosing to not bully, but to leave open the possibility of a dialogue, the Democrats can make good on their open-minded ideals and lead the way to a more productive political atmosphere.
On the front page of Saturdays Oregonian an article called “War supporters feel adrift as tide turns” discussed the sentiments of a number of people who continue to support the war in Iraq. Among them, Elfriede Plumondore said of those who are protesting the war on Sunday, “I’d probably get into a verbal spat with them. I don’t think they’re all that intelligent, to be perfectly honest.” Another supporter, Wayne Brady, spoke at a public hearing on the Oregon Legislature’s proposed resolution urging speedier troop withdrawal. “I was disappointed that no one ever even bothered to ask me a question,” said Brady, “I just felt this thing was being rammed through with no opposition.” I immediately recognized these opinions: they were mirror images of concerns voiced by many critics of the war, three and four years ago when the war was at its height of support.
Elfriede’s substitution of intelligence level for a differing opinion is a typical sign of political polarization (used freely by both sides). On the other hand, those of us who have not lost a loved one in the war cannot begin to imagine the impact this experience has had on this mother’s life. And with only a little reflection it is easy to see how the emotional connection with staying the course can be made by those who wish to honor those loved ones who died serving their country.
To Wayne, who mentioned that "this thing is just being rammed through with no opposition." Welcome to the party. This opinion has been voiced by many since a “connection” was made between Afghanistan and Iraq, leading to our subsequent invasion.
My instinct is to look at the irony in this situation. Those who stood on the side of an administration who certainly rammed things through with no opposition, disregarding any dissenting opinions by taking full advantage of the tragedy of 9/11 and the GOP controlled House and Senate, now seeking out a reasonable voice of dissent, and dialogue.
Simply chalking a difference of opinion up to a lack of intelligence hits a little closer to home. I’ve always been one who rolls my eyes at those liberal catchphrases about intelligence (they seem to be the only opinion that can be expressed succinctly by a democrat), “A Republican is just a Democrat with their brain left out”. The divisiveness in this attitude rubs me the wrong way.
The bigger issue is that if we continue to allow polarization of opinions and a win-at-all-cost mentality to dominate our politics, the pendulum will continue to swing back and forth with each side taking its turn at bullying the other for its allotted time, and then complaining when being bullied.
Calling each other names and laying blame is nice for keeping ourselves snug in our own viewpoints. I can complain about the Bush administration, criticize every move they make, and wait for my turn to gloat at the next defeat of Republicans in the election. But this attitude does little in creating real dialogue that could lead to a deeper understanding on both sides.
Before I delve too deep into my “can’t we all just get along” speech, let me be clear about one thing. I don’t think it necessary for our bipartisan viewpoints to soften, or for ideals and goals on either side to be thrown out the window. What I do feel is essential is a move towards respect for the intelligence of individuals. And a willingness on both sides to listen and incorporate new and possible differing information into their way of looking at a particular issue. The necessity of dialectic-type conflict in our country is not something I want to dispute. But the essence of Hegel’s structure is that when two opposing ideas meet, they clash, brawl, beat each other up, but eventually the two opposing propositions create a synthesis or at the very least (or most in our hopeful case) a qualitative transformation in the direction original ideas.
With the hope of fresh ideas and real possibilities to ending this difficult conflict in the best way possible as the ultimate best case scenario. What is the drawback to such a concept? Well, for one, the old recess trick of, “Ha Ha, fooled you!” Comes to mind. And instead of a few embarrassing moments, political suicide could be the worst-case scenario.
But it’s time. And the pendulum’s swing identifies the Democrats as the party that must take that first step. By choosing to not bully, but to leave open the possibility of a dialogue, the Democrats can make good on their open-minded ideals and lead the way to a more productive political atmosphere.
posted by J Hinmon at
8:31 PM
1 Comments:
Well written article.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home