Stand Firm

Take a look at today’s headlines concerning the debate in Washington about our national debt:

• Senator: Mood on Hill is “Toxic”
• Boehner backed into corner by Tea Party, Obama
• Opinion: Get over it, raise debt ceiling
• IMF Chief on Debt: No Magic Bullet
• No love for GOP plan
• Betting on Default
• McCain blasts fellow Republicans
• Can the “Hell, No” caucus get to “Yes”?
• Debt plan failed to get enough support for a vote
• Cut the Crap Act
• Opinion: Shared Sense of Purpose Lost
• Dems or GOP: Who's to blame?
• Zakaria: The damage is already done

In the opinion of this long-time observer of American society and politics, the current debate in Washington is the most bitter and divided since the late 1960s, when we had anti-war protests that turned violent, riots in the cities, tear gas and bullets on college campuses… when “Hell, No, We Won’t Go” met “Better Dead than Red.”

The current debate over the budget is kind of like that.  Fortunately it’s mostly verbal, so far.  But unless we rediscover our common ground as Americans All, it may not stay that way.

This is not about the budget, as such.  It is about the way we as a people are losing the ability to work together.  The budget debacle is just one of the latest and most obvious examples of our loss of shared purpose.

Whether you consider yourself a partisan of the left, a partisan of the right, or a moderate participant, here are some questions you must ask yourself. 

• Do you want to share the power of government with others, even though you do not agree with their opinions, or would you rather your people be in charge of the whole thing? 
• Do you want your chosen political party to run the country unopposed?  Wouldn’t that be great?

Unfortunately, if you are like most Americans today you may not have thought this all the way through.  Consider this: if you prefer your political group to rule unopposed, then you are by your own choice and declaration endorsing one-party rule.  Like the Soviet Union.  If you want to silence and render powerless those with whom you disagree, then whether you realize it or not you are an extremist.

If you do want your opinions to prevail at all costs, here are some words of advice. 

• Portray moderation as weakness and cooperation as failure. 
• Present every choice as a matter of principle.  Do not allow multiple opinions to become points of distraction.
• Do not allow divergent opinions to be considered, however modest they might seem.  It sets a bad precedent. 
• Avoid listening to opinions other than your own, except to find ways to counter or ridicule them. 
• Encourage your representatives and spokespeople to flatly refuse compromise.  Tell them to “Stand Firm!” on your chosen political positions. 

"Stand firm" has in the past conveyed the image of a soldier couageously defending his position against overwhelming odds.  It has connotations of bravery, moral strength, and triumph against overwhelming odds.  It was an uplifting and empwering exhortation.

As is the way with politicians and advertisers, this powerful phrase has been twisted to serve another purpose.  Instead of encouraging gallantry, it has become a code phrase meaning "Refuse to cooperate."  For purposes of manipulating public opinion, extremists pretend that they are being gallant.  But in fact, in this toxic political environment, “Stand firm” really means "Refuse to listen to anyone else's opinion."  Instead of "Do the right thing," it means "Force everyone else to do it our way, regardless of consequences, because only we know what is best.”  One of the minor goals of this post is to take back this one phrase, at least, from the extreme partisans who have misappropriated it. 

Extremists usually justify their fanatical positions and behavior by either (1) insisting that if their radical measures are not taken, the nation will suffer great calamity, or (2) accusing their opponents of being fanatics, and portraying themselves as trying to bring balance to the dialogue by counteracting the bias of others.

To the (rare) unbiased observer, the fatalistic attitude of most political extremists is apparent.  They seem to believe that it doesn’t matter if they bring the country down in the process of trying to enforce their will.  They imply that a country that is not doctrinally ‘correct’ does not deserve to survive anyway. 

This is a high stakes game.  If the current hyper-partisanship continues, then sooner or later one side will emerge victorious.  At that point, one party rule will be achieved.  Hopefully there will not be a full-blown civil war on the way to one party taking charge.  But if there must be a civil war, extremists seem to be saying, so be it. 

Those of us who still actually listen to and consider the opinions of others are considered dangerous by partisans of both sides.  Partisans mistrust people who think for themselves.  Apparently, their need to impose their black-and-white world view is overwhelming.

From the partisan perspective, it is better for a person to affirm the party “platform” than to risk the possibility of coming to an incorrect conclusion by thinking.  Ironic, isn’t it, that extremists who scream about the supremacy of individual rights (and BOTH sides do!) are busy at the same time denying the validity of any opinion which does not mirror that of the collective (whether of the right or the left).

In earlier times, parents taught their children to work together, and fanatics were feared.  Not any longer.  When did zealotry become a virtue, and cooperation a vice?  That is what has happened in our national dialogue.

The most unsettling thing to those of us who still believe in respecting others, who still believe in listening, who honor other people’s rights as much as our own… the most unsettling thing is that it won’t really matter who wins the endgame.  Once one party rule is firmly established, whether from the left or the right, we will all lose our freedom.

Our system of government by the people inherently requires cooperation, and sometimes, compromise.  ‘Compromise’ is not a dirty word, by the way, despite what the extremists tell you.

If you do not like the idea of one party rule, then quit encouraging political intolerance and reaffirm our common ground as Americans.  Talk with respect about your political opponents because, despite honest differences of opinion they are persons worthy of respect, and because they are Americans too.  Reaffirm our American way of government as a Republic, not a dictatorship of the most dogmatic. 

If we all agreed about everything, we would need no government.  One of the functions of government is to moderate differences of opinion.  That is why Congress debates laws before passing them.  That is why, for big disagreements, there is a system of courts.

Nations and persons who value freedom live peacefully among neighbors with whom they disagree.  It is not necessary for everyone to agree about everything.  Seeking universal agreement is a futile quest that will only end in oppression or political ‘cleansing’ or both.

People who want to live in a society where everyone agrees do not value freedom.  They value the supremacy of their own doctrines or their own political allies (comrades?).  They do not value the rights, opinions, or (in some cases) lives of others.

Intolerance is a symptom of totalitarian desires.  Whether of the left (collectivist) or the right (fascist), totalitarian desires are toxic to our American freedom. 

Definition of totalitarian: “Relating to or operating a centralized government system in which a single party without opposition rules over political, economic, social, and cultural life.”  Does this sound like what our Congressional leadership is pushing for?  Regardless of the lip service they may pay to freedom, equality, or American values, those who want to impose political rule by crushing the opposition are moving our country toward totalitarianism.

Do you believe in the wisdom of the founders and great leaders of this American Republic?  If so, then listen to them now.

Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, concerning political arrogance:  “I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the convention…, would, with me… doubt a little of his own infallibility…”

Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, on the intolerance of that time: “Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, referring to the ambitions of political parties:  “They are likely, in the course of time… to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.”

Abraham Lincoln, on the dangers of division among Americans:  “At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”

By all means, do get actively involved.  Do work to influence your government for the better.  Do not stand idly by while other people do things that are bad for our country.  Be politically active.  Do not, in the process, begin to demean, ridicule, or hate. 

This American believes strongly that one side in the budget debate is more honest, more ethical, and better for the future of our country.  I want that side to prevail in the current crisis.  I have taken steps to let my representatives know what I think is the best course of action.  I do not want my representatives to shut down the other side.  I do want all the representatives of the American people to work together honestly, cooperatively, to achieve financial responsibility. 

The end result needs to be fiscal responsibility, but the goal must be reached together.  If it is not, then the success will endure only as long as it takes for the other side to gain enough political power to reverse course.  Without an ongoing spirit of cooperation and shared purpose, any controversial political issue is destined to become an ongoing drama of reversal after reversal.  In the end, nothing will ever truly be accomplished.

So never compromise on matters of principle.  But do be willing to compromise on matters of policy and opinion.

Do not, in the process of pushing your chosen agenda, destroy the very thing you seek to preserve.

The next time a partisan of one extreme or the other tells you to choose sides, because the fate of the nation depends on it, tell the partisan that you have chosen sides.  Explain to him that the opposite of an extremist is a moderate, and that you have chosen to stand in favor of moderation and against extremism.  That’ll get him worked up.  Extremists hate moderates even more than they hate the opposite extremists.  That is because the partisan’s own hyper-partisan perspective is validated by extremists of the opposite persuasion.  The opposing extremist also validates for the partisan the environment of urgency in which he thrives. 

The moderate on the other hand, by refusing to buy into the drama, the urgency, and the paranoia, undercuts the extremist’s own sense of self-importance and leaves him without his most effective weapons – fear and urgency. 

Want an example?  You’ve probably heard of ‘McCarthyism.’  Look at what happened to Senator Joseph McCarthy after he was called to account for his extremist allegations and actions.*

Do you see why they hate you?  Do you see why you must not hate them back?

One final word of encouragement.  Stand Firm Against Extremism.

Gryphem

* Would you like to know how Senator McCarthy created hyper-partisan paranoia, and how he was ultimately stopped?  If so, I recommend the movie, “Good Night, and Good Luck.”  We could use some voices like Edward R. Murrow today.