The other day, a reader forwarded me an article from the NY Times that discussed how the increasing political hostility in the country is affecting personal and professional relationships. I found it very painful to read, though, because they could have been writing about Polimom’s family. We’re so damaged, in fact, that I’ve been thinking of giving up the blog and turning off the political side of my mind.
I haven’t yet, obviously, but I understand far too well the damage the judgments, accusations, and attacks are causing. And mine is just an average American family — a microcosm of the wider society. From that NY Times article:
The mother and daughter had been close, but suddenly they stopped talking and exchanging e-mail messages. The freeze lasted almost a month.
“Finally, it hit me that if one of us got hit by a bus tomorrow, I don’t want my final thought to be, ‘She supports George Bush,’ ” Ms. Langham said. They resumed contact, but have agreed not to discuss the administration and the war, or even forward each other humorous political e-mail messages.
With Iraq locked in seemingly endless violence and a contentious midterm election just weeks away, a similar silent treatment seems to be spreading across certain corners of society. People who once feistily shared their convictions about politics now report biting their tongues around — or even completely avoiding — friends and relatives who disagree, trying to avoid fights over the Bush administration and, specifically, the war.
That’s it in a nutshell: George Bush and the war.
We’ve had lots of great discussions here on the blog lately about the tone of the current campaigns. We all seem to agree that yes, ’tis a nasty season. Many have argued that this is just a typical election — that politics are always ugly. While I agree with that to a point, though, this one just feels worse, but it’s been hard to put my thumb on what’s different.
An editorial today, again from the NY Times, pinned down part of what’s been gnawing at me. Where we used to passionately (and often heatedly) argue about issues like taxation or education, questioning someone’s ideology or philosophy didn’t bring cries of “traitor” or “enemy sympathizer”. But we’ve now had years of practice at seeing one another as enemies — to loved ones, values, and the country itself:
In Mr. Bush’s world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don’t. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don’t support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.
Ordinary Americans are being forced to make the most un-American of choices: question and be labeled treasonous, or support this president and his war blindly.
There have been other times in our history when we’ve become suspicious and polarized; Vietnam, for instance, and McCarthyism. Polimom’s too young to have any memories of those days that I can use as a yardstick against today. However, I have never heard that in those difficult years, a major political party — one of only two — was an enemy of the country in its entirety.
This is a whole new level of division, and it’s bringing us into dangerous, uncharted waters. It’s not clear that this country — or at least its people — qualify anymore for the “United” in our name, and it scares me.
No wonder my family is divided. We’re just a sad, shattered reflection of what’s going on everywhere.
* * * * *
Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has more.