Should the U.S. construct a new immigrant work visa system? Should we continue to discourage Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from running for re-election? Should we grant asylum to foreigners persecuted for sexual orientation without proof of homosexuality?
As an individual, I know my answer to these questions because I approach global politics with a consistent underlying attitude.
“We,” however, do not so consistently maintain an underlying attitude. Democracy thrives on differences of opinion. Without them, elections, politics and this opinion page would be obsolete. In an environment so dependent on differing sentiments, this idea of “we” is misleading.
After fiery partisan attacks fueled by the shooting in Tucson, President Barack Obama stopped just short of tattooing “unity” on his forehead for the State of the Union address. He acknowledged that democracy requires differences but placed emphasis elsewhere.
“We are part of the American family,” he said. “We are still bound together as one people … we share common hopes and a common creed.”
Emphasis on unity is not a new trend within political speeches. But it is a pointless one.
What do “we” Americans have in common? Most of us live on the same mass of land. A great number of us expect ice served in our beverages. And many of us think of ourselves all too often as constituting a homogenous global actor.
Action toward Egypt depends on whether we’re working for security and stability or for human rights. Regarding Mexico, we must decide on whether we want to keep our distance or resolve the country’s problems. The situation with gay foreigners comes down to whether we’re upholding our international image or guaranteeing individual dignity.
Which of the above stances should we take? You might have a preference. Your circle of friends might have a preference. The Facebook group “I Hate When I Wake Up In The Morning And The Republicans Are Still B--ching” might also have a preference. But to put preferences aside and decide what we are working toward is impossible. There is no consensus.
Rather than unrealistically pleading for unity, prominent figures should call for objective recognition that all Americans don’t share the same goal. Until this occurs, real arguments remain lost in false assertions from those who misunderstand others’ attitudes.
Conservatives don’t “hate the poor.” Liberals are not “stupid.” These groups simply operate based on different assumptions about the world. Urges for unity brush over these differences, causing people to think those who disagree inhibit a necessary order.
Leaders err frequently in attempts to maintain false unity. Analysts associate “groupthink” with intelligence failures. In both the Cold War and the war on terror, according to these analysts, that individuals remained in traditional thought paradigms with colleagues caused them to overlook facts or opportunities. Endorsing unanimity encourages communication deficiencies.
In “The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939,” Edward Carr urges politicians to recognize facts before addressing problems, so as not to repeat the League of Nations’ idealistic failure. “The initial stage of wishing must be succeeded by a stage of hard and ruthless analysis,” Carr writes.
We might wish we agreed, but pretending we do creates problems. Two years ago in Cairo, Obama announced, “suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.” This statement, a far cry from Tuesday’s nationalism-loaded rhetoric, rings true domestically as well.
Sure, we might all love us some apple pie. But we also need to love us some room to disagree.
Disagree with Alex at algrego1@asu.edu
