Gil Troy highlights Jewish issues and involvement in the 2008 election. Troy believes that “within the Jewish community, partisans from both sides behaved abominably, demonstrating a growing hysteria and close-mindedness” (Troy par. 1). He first points to Obama’s being a secret Muslim: a somewhat prevalent belief in a community otherwise known for its intelligence. He then mentions the “demagogic, unpatriotic, anti-zionist” Rev. Wright as an area of concern (Troy par. 3). Troy also points to the Jewish acceptance of Sarah Palin despite her lack of foreign policy experience and the tendancy of Jewish Obama supporters to call any criticism of their candidate, even if policy based, a smear. He finally brings up a September anti-Iran rally from which Hilary Clinton was discouraged from attending and from which Palin. Troy concludes that the Jewish population, just like the general population, is quite splintered in their political ideas and that they need to recognize their common interests. Troy presents an interesting conclusion here but his arguments are supported by anecdotes and no broader statistics.
Nevertheless he does put forth an interesting idea in his conclusion: using common interests to unite a community that was previously divided. Francis Schaeffer and Jerry Falwell called this “cobelligerency.” This “meant aligning themselves with people who might differ with them theologically or on certain key issues, but who were willing to fight on the same side in pursuit of specific goals” (Martin p. 197). Troy presents this idea in reverse because he wants those with similar theologies to use that rather than social issues to unite them. While it is nice to think of the world that Troy is proposing, the differences that he wants to play down are what makes life interesting. Human beings are all unique. And the problem with trying to cast ourselves in unity as with the Moral Majority or as with Troy’s world is that it highlights the similarities and discounts the differences. Troy calls for civility in his conclusion but rather than stopping here his call for unity highlights a problem with current society. We are all called to define ourselves but given only a few options with which to do it. Whether it be religion or politics, our individuality is under attack. I am all in favor of being kind to one another and of attempting to unite ourselves. But we must not downplay our differences in the process. It speaks better to the human condition if we emphasize our differences but are still able to come together.
Is current society focused too much on labels and do these labels promote divisive animosity and limit us as human beings?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
"Is society too focused on labels?"
Well...yes and no. Obviously, the current political and media climate lend themselves to partisanship and bickering, because frankly it works, in terms of winning viewers/listeners and voters. Much of the current media is driven by who can be the most obnoxious and outrageous, and as such we are bombarded with quotes and news from Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright and Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, even though they do not speak for the vast majority of people and most people could care less what they think. But they know how to manipulate the media and how to get publicity, and they laugh all the way to the bank, and we swallow it up, becoming indignant over the opinions of a few far out fools. And yet...It seems that while most people in America do not fall into such easy divisions, there are in fact a set of fundamental differences among certain factions of people, and the country is indeed becoming more polarized as activist interest groups exert growing influence over a large group of government bodies (legal and educational) that many citizens feel profoundly uncomfortable with. As such, it seems that there are indeed certain groups of people who do have fundamental differences on a number of issues, and that a middle ground may be difficult to reach. However, these groups are not so far apart as the hustlers like Moore, Sharpton, Swagert and Van Impe might have us believe.
Post a Comment