Shiite vs. SunniTwo and a half years after the American invasion, deep divides that have long split Iraqi society have violently burst into full view. As the hatred between Sunni Arabs and Shiites hardens and the relentless toll of bombings and assassinations grows, families are leaving their mixed towns and cities for safer areas where they will not atomatically be targets. In doing so, they are creating increasingly polarized enclaves and redrawing the sectarian map of Iraq, especially in Baghdad and the belt of cities around it.
In the United States we have our own problems with religious polarization, as this US News article asserts. It was about "Justice Sunday" held earlier this year. To quote,
Accusing the Democrats of running a jihad against believers clearly implies that people who vote Democratic are either terribly ignorant or simply not good Christians, Jews, or Muslims. This is a surefire recipe for increasing polarization within the churches. One Baptist website complained caustically about "Injustice Sunday," quoting one minister who said: "There are people of faith on both sides; neither has God in their hip pocket on this issue."
I have to admit that I sometimes feel polarized myself. I fantasize about moving from my so-called "red state," to a really "blue"one, where I would be among more like-minded folk. And I have often posted angrily about Republican views on contentious issues.
But I also often have contended that the better way is to try to look for common ground. For example, in a previous blog post, this article on "The Politics of Polarization," by Galston and Kamarck, got me to thinking that there is just such a way for Democrats to return to governing. One author, however, Michael Barone writing in US News & World Report, believes we may move away from being as divided in the 2008 presidential election as we now appear to be.
Robert Samuelson wrote an interesting column titled, "How Polarization Sells," in June of 2004. He contends that the real polarization is between the true believers on both sides and everyone else. He may have a point. What do you think?
Article references:
- The Case of the Vanishing Moderates: Party Polarization in the Modern Congress, by Professor Sean Theriault (pdf format)
- Polarization, by Michelle Maese and Tova Norlen - from the Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project at the University of Colorado.
7 comments:
Maybe our voices are finally being heard. Many understand a tax break should not be offset by budget cuts. Most individuals whom receive tax breaks are encouraged to spend the money helping out the economy. However, shopping at Wal-Marts does not help our domestic gross product figure which in lay mans terms means we are not producing real revenue or tax dollars for our country. Encouraging domestic growth through corporate tax relief will ensure America is a competitive country while maintaining fiscal responsibility. This will help us better fund education. We want our health and education funded and we want it immediately.Americans are becoming more aware, more vigilant, they understand the value of education is growing and the need to keep a watch on congressional spending is critical. The time for silent bill passing on capital hill is now past. America wants justification for any and all cuts regarding health and education. How can an administration, who claims to be the education administration, make such a claim and then trun around and support education cuts? I read all about this on www.voteswagon.com
Anonymous, I agree that education should be a high priority. And I can agree on corporate tax relief also, as long as tax relief for the middle class is also strongly implemented.
Nuc,thanks for reading and the recognition. I feel that the primaries can be problematic when the electorate is overly swayed by the outward appearance of a candidate, rather than their issue positions.
Your question about party loyalty is a fair one. I guess the most honest answer is that I am one of those old-fashioned "bleeding heart liberals," a clinical social worker by training and inclination.
The therapist part of me probably accounts for my commitment to respectful discourse.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Nuc, I think that my party loyalty is at a deep enough level that I would stick with the folks whose "style" most matches my own. I am a cultural liberal (pro choice, strict separation of church and state, for affirmative action, protection of civil liberties, etc.) Those are biase I feeely admit.
As for military intervention, I was ok with going into Bosnia and Afghanistan as we did; the preemptive aggression in Iraq seemed wrong to me, both morally and strategically. My husband (who was in the Navy) and I both think that the U.S. should have stuck with rooting out al Queda adherents where they were, rather than put so many of our forces at risk in Iraq.
Free trade is a harder nut to crack. Mr. Clinton's position was just fine with me. And I am familiar with Tom Friedman's "Flat world" ideas and mostly agree that it is here to stay. But U.S workers are so vulnerable, which is the reason for my ambivalence. Thanks for the very stimulating conversation.
Raymond, yes, the debates are fierce because there is so much at stake. Lives can be lost, as with the hostage, and our soldiers, of course. I think the other thing that polarizes is that it is a long time before we can vote for the next president. Thank you very much for your good comments. There is common ground between us, which is good.
Raymond, thanks for letting me know that you enjoy my blog. I, too, feel that it is useful to thoughtfully wrestle with difficult issues.
The shooting at the Miami airport is one of those difficult issues for me, because I am a retired psychotherapist. If the passenger was bipolar and off his meds, it is truly a tragedy in my eyes. I understand that it may have been unavoidable, and that the air marshall was doing what he was trained to to. But how sad I am about what happened - to the man who may have been struggling against the psychosis associated with his illness, to his wife who probably was trying to save his life as she was perhaps trying to intervene in their argument gone terribly wrong, to the air marshalls who now know there was no bomb, and to the mental health field that wants to help the victims of mental illness be medication compliant.
My hope is that we can somehow acquire more wisdom about how to handle these extremely complex situations that do not lend themselves to a standard response. I am an airline passenger, and I want to fly "secure," as you do.
No easy answers for me here, Raymond. But maybe we can gain further understanding and respect through honest respectful dialogue.
Raymond, thanks for your thought provoking questions. I am going to copy and past them into another blogpost that is current in time-Dec. 17, 2005. I think this will be better for our readers because I wrote about this just yesterday.
See you with my answers at the new thread above.
I do not think that this will be easy, or that it will happen very soon. But your thought is a very good one with which to begin a new year. Happy New Year to you and thanks!
Post a Comment