Politics and Division
People think in different ways and have different opinions that can overlap with the thinking of others, but there can also be major differences, and this causes people to separate themselves into groups so that they can be surrounded by likeminded people they feel comfortable with. These groups make cultures, religions, and countries that splinter into different groups within the larger group. Politics is one of the main areas where people are divided today, especially in America. The country is divided between the Democrats and Republicans, generally speaking, with other groups caught in between trying to survive on their own or dealing with the big two parties if they happen to agree on a particular topic. Politics divide families at the Thanksgiving table, during the holidays, parties, and other occasions. Arguments can pop out of anywhere if it can be made political. For example, a person’s choice of food could be seen as to whether or not they believe in climate change. Another example would be if a person is openly Christian, then one might infer that the person in question is a conservative. Both examples could be non-political, but anything could be made political with the right propaganda and government ruling. Political parties will then pick a side of the argument and give people a reason to be with them rather than with others. For this reason, politics is a source of division in America.
Even before today, it was known that politics was going to divide the country. James Madison talks about the hidden causes of faction that are in the nature of man and it can be seen everywhere in different degrees of activity and circumstances in daily life. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, government, as well the theory as of practice, an attachment to different leaders contending for fame and power. As a result of this zeal, these have divided mankind into parties, fueled them with shared hatred for one another, and made them much more likely to annoy and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.[1] This is exactly what happens when people divide themselves and start othering each other. Once the lines are drawn and people take the side they agree with, the other side becomes the enemy they must fight against. James Madison then says America cannot get rid of factions, which may even extend to our countries given the causes of factions. He says that, liberty is to faction as air is to fire. One cannot exist without the other. To get rid of liberty to get rid of factions is idiocy since it is essential to political life just like how it would be idiocy to get rid of air because of fire since air gives fire its destructive power.[2] There is no real way to get rid of the divisions that people naturally make between themselves without restricting their rights and freedoms. As a result, politics will naturally cause people to come into conflict with one another. These conflicts can escalate to violence between them if not properly controlled.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the American Civil War. Fredrick Douglass in his Antislavery Constitution talks about one of the dividing political and moral issue dividing America at the time, slavery. Douglass says that, slavery is uncivilized at its core. Because of this, it fears a more civilized society. It thrives where no one will condemn it or disapprove of its practice. While it is in the Union, it will be subjected to both dissenting voices. Slavery’s only hope then would be to leave the Union.[3] This presented an ultimatum to the south. Get rid of slavery or get rid of the Union and the south chose the Union. Douglass, however, wanted America to stay together as one. He offers an argument on this when he says, I have confidence in the instinct of the slaveholders. They see that the Constitution won’t give slavery protection when it stops being used by them. They also see that if the people of America want to abolish slavery, then there is nothing in the same Constitution that will stop their will.[4] He presents slavery as unconstitutional and something that won’t be protected by the law once it becomes illegal. Since he was confident in the instinct of the slaveholders, he thought they would come to their senses once it was gone, but that doesn’t mean that the slaveholders weren’t going to fight tooth and nail to keep slavery. This political and moral decision divided the country in two and left a lasting mark on the country that is remembered to this day.
Americans making political decisions that divide the country is ingrained in the very foundation of the country. The events leading up to the American Revolution saw colonists dividing themselves between those who wanted the colonies to be independent and those loyal to Britain. One way the colonists showed which side they were one was through the clothing they wore and what they bought. Those loyal to Britain bought and wore British goods while those who were against them bought and wore homemade goods. An article by Breen says that, this boycott of goods drew young people into the political battle. Students at Harvard, Yale and the College of Rhode Island, appeared at a graduation ceremony during the late 1760s wearing suits made at home. They irritated the royal officials with their displays, but that was the fun of it for them. They communicated political meanings through non-consumption to their others their age.[5] Displaying political leanings via appearance is very common with hats and shirts especially during presidential elections. It is a way of showing where a person’s beliefs lie. Another way a person shows their beliefs is through their actions. The Tea Party was one such event where ordinary citizens showed their beliefs. Breen says that, by getting rid of tea leaves in the community, which was an import that could be found in almost every American home, the colonists strengthened their own commitment to a certain political ideology. That’s not all they did. This destruction of the tea products communicated an unmistakable political message to the far-away communities. This message being, “we stand together”.[6] Politics became one of the dividing forces that created America. This goes to show the divisive effects of politics once it reaches a certain boiling point.
Even when America came together as a country, they fought and divided themselves because of politics. Politics is said to be full of snakes and traitors with people using gossip as a common tool to discredit their opponents. Joanne Freeman says in an article that, gossip was a poison that was almost impossible to fight against once it spread. At times, the best strategy was to contradict a rumor before one began with Hamilton sending a signed statement of innocence to an American diplomat in Europe ahead of a possible congressional investigation into his conduct as secretary of state used as an example.[7] Gossip could destroy a person’s public image or even get them fired if certain people hear it. Indirect confrontations like gossip are more effective in politics than direct since it plays dirty but effective. Thomas Jefferson was one such person who gossiped and indirectly confronted his political opponents. Joanne Freeman says that, Jefferson was uncomfortable directly confronting a rival named Marshall, so in 1809, he tried asking his friend Joel Barlow to write a history countering Marshall’s version, but Barlow refused. A few years later, Jefferson tried to directly refute Marshall’s work by himself with a meticulous revision of Marshall’s fifth volume that detailed the events of Washington’s presidency.[8] A prominent historical figure in American history trying to tell history his way because of politics doesn’t make the country nor himself look good. The business of politics can do this to people if they are devoted to their party first and morals second and can even make the interpretation of history political.
Politics can even divide the country in its interpretations of history. Two people look at Andrew Jackson’s removal of the Native Americans from their lands and whether or not the policy helped them. Robert Remini concludes that, yes, Andrew Jackson did help the Native American people and says that, even to his last day on June 8, 1845, he firmly believed that he had saved Native Americans from their immediate extinction. This statement sounds larger than life and many people today don’t believe this or accept this in any way, but it’s true. Andrew Jackson saved the Five Civilized Nations from their demise.[9] On the other hand, Alfred Cave says that, no, Andrew Jackson did not help the Native American people and even made him look like a sort of tyrant. He concludes that, even if he accepted the constraints in the law or honored the promises Congress gave to secure the law, it is unlikely that the president could achieve his objectives in the Indian removal. This is the mark of Jackson’s success in politics that many historians over the years have expressed to those who read their works the idea that neither the constraints nor the promises existed.[10] Both sides present a different Andrew Jackson. One that emphasized helping the Native Americans and one that was a criminal in office. The only thing both Robert and Alfred Cave agree on is that the removal process was way too fast, however, Robert’s decision is the one more readily accepted with despite him saying that people today don’t believe his view of events. It appears that most people would rather make American history look more positive than realistic.
Coming back to the Civil War, it is seen that politics had a hand in the telling of this story as well that can make it divisive. History is told by the winners after all. Elizabeth Varon says in her article that, both sides knew well that the North was by not entirely abolitionist. They worked with Democrats from the north in electing proslavery presidents and passing proslavery legislation. The North differed when they used the fiction of abolition solidarity to try to engineer proslavery solidarity. This idea of a united North scared white Southerners into coming together.[11] The northern states were not entirely against slavery and some people within it even fought for it. They just used the notion of being antislavery as part of their narrative to draw in more people for their cause. Varon brings up a related argument in the antislavery press. She finds in the press, that the South was not completely united against abolitionism, and that there was no realistic possibility of a proslavery disunion movement in the south. “Immediatist papers delighted in printing excerpts from border states and Upper South newspapers and politicians who took Unionist positions against the nullifiers”. The Pennsylvania Freeman repeatedly presented evidence, that was taken most often from Kentucky, that South Carolina’s military forces were isolated and humiliated.[12] Not even the south was entirely proslavery nor were they entirely bad as evident by these northern papers being selective about their evidence to show that they were winning the war. Political parties will obscure the truth or tell half-truths to convince people they are right and further divide the country.
In conclusion, the dividing effects of politics are obvious across all American history even at a glance. It causes wars, division among neighbors, backbiting, and the clouding of history to promote whatever agenda it pushes. America began dividing itself with politics and it continues to do so to this day. It happens across every country in the world especially when tensions are high and there doesn’t seem to be any room for compromise. One of the main issues of politics dividing America has to do with fake facts and lies. In politics, people often forget that the truth and common goals that bring them together. When faithful Catholics fight each other, it is the reminder of God that reminds them to not divide themselves, so the country should do the same. America needs to focus on the goal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness bring it together and not politics, which is wide as an ocean, but shallow as a puddle.
References
“The Antislavery Constitution”, (CANVAS).
“Did Andrew Jackson’s Removal Policy Benefit Native Americans?” In Taking Sides: Clashing
Views in United States History Vol. 1, 14th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2011), 190-208. (CANVAS).
Breen, T.H. “‘Baubles of Britain’: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth
Century,” In Past & Present 119 (May 1988), 73-104.
Freeman, B. Joanne, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2001), Chapter 2: Slander, Poison, Whispers, and Fame: The Art of Political Gossip,” 62-104.
Madison, James, “Federalist No. 10,” In The Federalist, ed. Jacob E. Cooke (Middletown, Conn:
Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 57-65.
Varon, Elizabeth, Disunion!: The Coming of the American Civil War, 1789-1859 (Chapel Hill,
NC: University of North Carolina, 2008), 118-123.
No comments:
Post a Comment