America is currently sharply divided so much that there seems to be no common ground between the sides. In the conservative corner, we have a tag team of Republicans and Trumpublicans. And there is a growing division between the two since the latter group is looked on as being a personality cult according to arch conservative George Will.
In the non-conservative corner, there are liberals, progressives, and leftists. And there is a division between leftists and the other 2 non-conservative groups.
But the sharpest division is between Trumpublicans and the coalition of those Republicans and non-conservatives who oppose Trump. And the division so great that some of those from the coalition have compromised their political standards to vote Trump out of office.
Nothing has illustrated the division between the two main groups more than the post-election actions. Many who support Trump sincerely believe that the election was stolen from their hero. Then again, for months before the Presidential elections in both 2016 and 2020, Trump claimed that the only way he could lose was if the elections were rigged against him. And Trump's claims were enough for many of his followers to employ the basic motto that says: Trump said it, I believe it, That settles it. Then again, conspiracy theories about the Democrats have also been circulating around conservative websites for a while before those elections which has furthered our nation's great divide.
Thus, it is in the spirit of that division, that blog writer Gene Veith (click here for a short bio) has recently written a recent article on how he expects minorities to come around and support the conservative cause. Citing an article by Musa al-Ghabri, a sociologist from Columbia, Veith makes the claim that because most people from minority groups are religious while the Democratic Party seems to be fleeing from religion, that that political party will lose its support from minority members. That movements like Identity Politics, Critical Race Theory, and other non-conservative social stands violate the conservative religious values of many who belong to minority groups in America. Thus, eventually these people will find their way to the conservative corner--Veith does not distinguish between Republicans and Trumpublicans (click here for the article).
Veith would be more than happy if these claims become true because Veith wants to advance the conservative cause. And having more minority members jump the Democratic Party ship to join the conservative cause would give that cause more political power.
Now we could analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the claims made by Veith and al-Gabri, but in the light of the polarization of America, that seems to be a less important issue. What is important here is how diametrically opposed that the sides mentioned are. We have the conservative cause, the Democratic Party, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory. And it seems that Veith and al-Gharbi believe that followers of the conservative cause and those who are into Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory are disjoint groups of people. Such a division, as well as how Veith and al-Ghabri write about these movements, is the problem in an America that is suffering greatly from polarization.
So while Veith and al Ghabri write as if the rise of the conservative cause and the, what is hopefully for them, the demise of Identity Politics and Critical Race Theory are good things. In essence, at least Veith is writing as a team player for the conservative cause and looks at what is happening solely in terms of what will help his team, the conservative cause, become stronger.
But it is Veith's team and competitive approach that makes it difficult for him to see the problems that his partisanship is causing. Such a team approach and partisanship further divides America. But not only that, a team approach and strong partisanship can blind us from seeing what each movement can contribute. And if we were to look at these movements as being mixtures of good and bad, perhaps we would not become so partisan because we would recognize the strengths each movement possesses.
While Veith is not only a political conservative, but a religiously conservative Christian as well, it might help here if we looked at the example set by another very religious leader: Martin Luther King Jr.
When King compared what he saw as Communism-Marxism and Capitalism, he failed to exhibit the team approach and partisanship that Veith has for conservative cause. Rather, King looked at the strengths and weaknesses of both ideologies/groups in order to create a hybrid between them. While King believes that Communism forgets that life is individual and Capitalism forgets that life is social, he also looks to combine the strengths of each movement despite the fact that he shared the opinion of William Temple, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, on Communism. For Temple described Communism as being a 'Christian heresy' in that it combined both real Christian concerns with beliefs that were totally against Christianity (click here for a writing by King on this and start with pg 92).
The point being here that instead of looking to advance one's own team or favorite ideology over and against the other teams and ideologies, perhaps we need to take King's approach. Perhaps we need to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the conservative cause, Identity Politics, and Critical Race Theory and seek to create our own hybrids of these different ways of thinking. For if we did that, rather than viewing people's political views and ideologies with whom we disagree as having nothing positive to contribute, perhaps, just perhaps, we can regain a sense of real unity while having sincere disagreements. At least, one could hope that that would happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment