The debate over the Bolton nomination, “Justice Sunday,” the “nuclear” option on filibusters, and political name-calling has me wondering why we’re paying our “representatives.” Does this type of activity really represent us? Don’t you hope the answer is “no”?
Conflict can be good. It can generate new ideas and solutions. But how much good is coming out of these partisan conflicts?
In the realm of international affairs, those of us outside of government are referred to as “civil society.” Is that an oxymoron in light of the “public” discourse that has taken place over the past few years? Oh, and each of us outside of the military is referred to as a “civilian.” Have we ever been less civil?
Asking ourselves why we’ve become less civil and so polarized is a good endeavor. But here’s an even better one: Let’s just stop the incivility. Take it one step further: Turn off all of the political pundits, politicians, Hollywood actors, singers, etc., who seem to enjoy not only getting themselves riled up but us, too. They have a right to free speech. We are a democracy. And guess what? We have the right not to listen to them, either. The Michael Moores, the Swift Boat Veterans, the Karl Roves, the James Carvilles, the Rush Limbaughs, the “Air Americas.” Just turn ’em off. How are they helping? Are they offering inclusive solutions that can move the country forward or are they just sounding off? It seems to be mainly the latter. And many are making a fortune off of these diatribes against “the other side” in the process.
That goes for the rest of us, too. Why are we getting so upset with “them” and not listening to other viewpoints? Don’t we need the best ideas possible, regardless of the source? Really, aren’t most people somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum? And, deep down, don’t we have many of the same concerns? Aren’t we all concerned about debt (private and/or public)? Aren’t we all concerned about the instability of our jobs? Aren’t we all concerned that the situation in Iraq seems to be deteriorating? Don’t we all feel concern for the people in that country and around the world who are being killed and wounded in conflicts? Who among us wasn’t moved to see the Iraqis risk their lives to take part in a process that many of us take for granted? Regardless of your position on this war, don’t you want to see a functioning democratic state come out of this?
Don’t most of us agree that the United Nations needs some reform? Don’t most of us wish that no one ever faced the decision of having an abortion, for whatever reason? Don’t most of us wish that we all had jobs, access to health care, and the opportunity to pursue an education? We may not agree on which of these issues is the most important and/or how to successfully address them, but is the polarizing, nasty dialogue helping?
And weren’t we all at least a tiny bit embarrassed by that last presidential campaign? Is that really how we want the process to go? Is that what we want other nations to see as the “American way”? Did that make democracy look appealing?
Once we turn off the political noise that offers little in the way of solutions, what can we do with all of that extra time? Maybe sit down and write a letter to our “representatives” and let them know that civil society is tired of the incivility in the political process and let them know the issues for which we would like to find constructive solutions.
If Hillary and Newt can find common ground, even on a single issue, then why can’t we?
Finally, this internal division is in some way helping al-Qaeda. They want us to fail. Divide and conquer. Is that what we want?
Katherine Gockel is a marketing consultant and a graduate student at the University of Denver’s Graduate School of International Studies.
