Sharon Kennedy: The futility of polarization
I often wonder why I bother to sound an alarm regarding the likely disintegration of our form of government if polarization continues. Some readers understand my reasons for temporarily setting aside frivolous subjects and concentrating on politics, but others think I’m merely bashing the MAGA tribe. That’s what polarization is all about. It’s a magnet pulling the electorate to one political tenet or another. Polarization is based on emotions. It dismisses rational discussion of the issues that divides the population. It’s not a new phenomenon.
In 1663, Samuel Butler published Part I of a satirical poem titled “Hudibras” exposing what he called “fanaticism, pretentiousness, pedantry and hypocrisy” within militant puritanical extremes. If you read his poem, you’ll discover it drips with satire as appropriate today as it was in Butler’s time. The first few words of Canto I, “When civil fury first grew high, and men fell out they knew not why …” remind me of the strange wind that swept across our nation when a Black man was elected to serve in the Oval Office.
Surely it was his presence in the White House that angered people who considered Obama an uppity Negro who didn’t know his place. Even voters who disliked Hillary would have preferred her to an upstart who came out of nowhere and seized the coveted prize from her hands. If I remember correctly, the hullabaloo over his birth certificate propelled the star of “The Apprentice” to political prominence. If Obama had stayed in the Senate where he belonged, our country might not be entangled in the polarized mess we find ourselves in today.
Even if we agree on many issues, our strongly held opposing views will drive a wedge between us. Unlike Brio trains that require positive and negative charges to connect in order to join the cars together and keep them going in the same direction, the opposite is true when it comes to political beliefs. We’ve become so polarized we don’t dare listen to anyone who holds an opinion different from ours. Instead of trying to understand why the “other” side believes what it does, we immediately dismiss anything not in agreement with our convictions.
Is this a sign of brilliance or stupidity? Kevin McCarthy made a bad deal in order to become Speaker of the House. After 15 attempts, he finally had the necessary votes to grab the gavel, but what good did it do him? His promises to those holding him hostage landed him in the gallery. He offered them everything except an organ. What was he thinking? To quote Line 45 of Butler’s pre-mentioned poem, “We grant, although he had much wit, he was shy of using it, as being loath to wear it out and therefore bore it not about.”
It’s challenging and far-fetched but connect the dots. The first few words of Canto I, Obama elected president, the birther conspiracy, the rocket rise of DJT, the 2020 election, no peaceful transfer of power, Jan. 6, extreme polarization, fall of McCarthy and a House divided. What are the common denominators? Could they be “fanaticism, pretentiousness, pedantry and hypocrisy?”
Often we turn to the past to understand the present. The writers, poets, philosophers and statesmen of old didn’t have Google or Wikipedia. They used logic or sarcasm to get their points across. Imagine what they would think of us today. Although we walk upright, our intellect hasn’t evolved much higher than caveman’s. The primary difference is now we fight with words instead of clubs. Our stupidity has made us an intergalactic joke.
— To contact Sharon Kennedy, send her an email at sharonkennedy1947@gmail.com. Kennedy's new book, "View from the SideRoad: A Collection of Upper Peninsula Stories," is available from her or Amazon.
This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Sharon Kennedy: The futility of polarization
