America was born of violence between liberal colonists and conservative royalist some 240 years ago and this past week with the assassination attempt of a high ranking liberal political figure Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords has shown how deeply violence still stirs in the heart of America. The facts remain unclear as to the motivation and influencers of the mentally unstable young man who shot 20 people, killing 6. However, what is clear is the attitude of suspicion and disdain in the present political environment. Over the past year, the level of American political discourse has sunk to incredible lows. During the election season, we saw conservative gun activists show up to political rally's of the opposing party with weapons in hand, then candidates of both parties found numerous ways to bring weapons of all sorts into their campaign events and ads, representatives of the Tea Party took it a step further by brutally attacking opposing activists and press members at their rallys, and assassin gunsights were used to mark specific politicians for removal in Palinist propoganda. The later became particularly poignant this last week given that Giffords was one of the politicians marked for "assassination"; a fact that prompted both Palin and other conservative politicians to refer to it as harmless political theater. While the Palinistas were undoubtedly just being careless in their hate speech, not intending it to be taken literally, a review of any number of blogs/discussion threads found that a percentage, small but yet alarming number of her supporters do take it seriously, stating that the campaign material and the attempted assassination were "a good beginning" or a "warning" to liberals and/or a call to arms to continue the assassination of more politicians and liberals alike.
The fight between liberals and conservatives in America was born out of a struggle for self-determination, and in defense of a hope and idealism about human natures capacity to come together for the common good, the first modern democracy, by the rule of the people. Appealing to a higher authority in God and nature, these traitorous liberal rebels risked everything up against the conservative Tory’s and British Royalists, declaring independence from nobility by asserting that "all men are created equal" taking up arms against their former British King. After winning the Revolutionary War, the liberal rebels, then founded the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation, and later after that proved inadequate, made a second attempt reframing the government under the US Constitution.
Eighty years later, the liberal Republican Party, under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, appealing to a higher authority in God and nature, challenged the US Constitution’s legal recognition of slavery and instantiation that African slaves were only 3/5 of a human (it should be noted that it wasn’t until the mid 20th century under Joseph McCarthy that Republican’s reinvented themselves as the bastion of conservatism and fear-mongering that they are known for today.) Conservative Northerners objected to Lincoln's liberal prospecting and Lincoln initially retracted from any abolitionist agenda. But then conservative Southerners threatened by the economic and philosophical impact of Northern Abolitionist movement on the unabashedly racist Southern culture and livelihood, went to war to ensure their right to enslave Africans which they argued weren't really human. The liberal Northerners prevailed in the ensuing bloody civil war and the constitution was amended to abolish slavery; but also culminating in one of the finest examples of "political theater" in American history, the "assassination" of Abraham Lincoln at the Ford Theater in Washington, D.C.
In the fight between liberals and conservatives in America in the 20th century, in slightly less dramatic fashion, liberals in the early 20th century fought for women’s and worker’s rights, in the mid 20th century for the civil rights of black and non-European minorities, finally resulting in an amendment to the constitution and landmark federal legislation; however, in the tradition of great "political theater" leaving a trail of blood with the "assassinations" of several prominent liberal leaders, most notably the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King Jr.
Conservatives have consistently been on the losing side of the great moral debates in American history. Whether you consider that good or bad, and whether you buy into revisionist portrayal of the founding fathers as the conservative patriots of American History, is becoming the great divide in 21st century politics. It certainly begs the question what would America look like today if the conservatives in this county had won any of these battles for the soul of our democracy and the liberty of America? Moreover, in today's world, does the conservative fight to establish a Christian government and to promote civil rights only to religiously approved groups of citizens equate to these historical battles to prevent the establishment of privileged religious institutions or traditions in government and the equal protection of rights under the law? Do the lines between liberals and conservatives today even equate to the historical battle lines that were waged in the social and political institutions of America over the last 240 years?
On the other hand, given the growing threats by conservative groups such as the Tea Party rebels, Christian Fascists, Gun Rights activists, and various militia movements, calling for their followers to take up arms, both figuratively and literaly, against the liberal foundations and representatives of the United States government, is it time for liberals to begin to take them seriously? Have liberals fallen behind in arming themselves for the next great American civil war that is brewing in the pages and punditry of conservative blogs, television, and radio? Should liberals step up with their own hit list of conservative politicians to "assassinate"--all in the name of good political theater ala John Wilkes Booth? Have we come to the point where we must decide whether we are a Red American or Blue American?
But in the end, is that what we really want--haven't we learned anything from this long history of the violence between liberals and conservatives in America? America may have been born out of of violence, however, the basis for our democracy is not domination, nor abject agreement, but respect for those on both sides of any argument. Democracy embraces the peaceful transition of power based on majority opinion and the protection of minority views. Appealing to a higher authority wherever one finds it, we are challenged to move beyond the battle lines artificially drawn between "liberals" and "conservatives" presented too often by self-promoting political leaders and talk-show pundits who manufacture conflicts where often there are none, who polarize the American public when in reality neither of the major political parties is actually identifiably right or left, but a hodgepodge of special interests on both sides of the politcal spectrum. When we tear down the curtain hiding the political machinery, there never was a boogieman out to destroy America on either side of the debate.
Rather, perhaps now it is time to return to that common ground imagined by the founding fathers of this country. Despite the propaganda on both sides, there is a shared belief and value system by the majority of Americans that is not represented by the politicians trying to get elected to a government which is increasingly oligarchical, out of touch with the needs of the people, preserving the privilege of the few and the powerful. The Tea Party movement radicalized that notion and made it self-serving by fomenting anger, hatred, and fear against a fictional political foe that was manufactured and funded by conservative think tanks and libertarian ideologues, rather than a true grassroots effort of the people for the people. The reality is "we the people" are the government, any criticism ultimately points back to us; we elect representatives for ourselves and our neighbors. If we only elect politicians that represent special interests--the greatest special interest being the political parties themselves--who can't get along with one another to do the people's business, it's nobody's fault but our own. So rather than focus on the few issues which form the basis of rancorous debate in the electoral rampage, maybe we can join together, “liberal” and “conservative” Americans, to reform a system that is increasingly out of touch with the common good of ourselves and our neighbors, we the American people.
No comments:
Post a Comment