 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
The interplay of two opposing forces in America’s sociopolitical landscape
On a lazy Tuesday morning early in January 2004, it was January 6 to be exact, the outside temperature was cold, and the wind was gusting from north as I was heading towards my office. An analysis of a socio-political trend in America as I heard in the car radio gave me even chiller than what I endured in this nippy January morning. It has become a second nature for me to tune to National Public Radio (NPR) to learn the comings and goings of this mortal world. The baritone voice of the anchorperson Bob Edwards usually fills my car. Thanks to scientific breakthrough! Without a car radio, driving could be a very tiresome job. I learned a great many things about American and world politics, societal affairs, showbiz world, and whatnot. On January 6, 2004, the NPR brought a modern-day philosopher whose name I cannot remember now. Too bad, I did not jot the commentator’s name. But that is beside the point. The topic of discussion was division in American society based on political philosophy.
The commentator let the listeners know his erudition about the division we have in American society. According to him, American polity can be grossly divided into two divergent camps. The first camp is of course the conservative group that is known to some sociologists as “Sons of Ronald Reagan.” The second group is the liberal camp. Some sociologists also call this group as “Secular group.” These two groups have nothing common between them as far as political philosophy is concerned. The die-hard Republicans are very much part of this conservative group. On the other hand, the most liberal folks of America who normally votes for the candidate from Democratic Party belong to the secular camp. The ‘Sons of Ronald Reagan’ tend to side with Christianity; therefore, one could characterize the camp as some kind of ‘faith-based’ group. Members of this group believe that the government should not interfere in people’s life. Therefore, big government is not their cup of tea. From time-to-time, the members of this group publicly say that American government is too big and bureaucracy stifles progress in America. They also naïvely think that the “trickle down” theory of Ronald Reagan works to boost the national economy. The premise of this line of thinking is the following: give the reach folks a break in terms of taxes, and they will invest the saved money, which will in turn boost the economy. Therefore, money saved by the rich will somehow find its way into productive investment. Many economists do not think that the rich folks are that eager to invest theirs saved money because of altruistic belief.
The other important traits of ‘Sons of Ronald Reagan’ that are worth mentioning here for the sake of differentiating them from the “Secular group’ are: they religiously attend church services and are avowed Christian; they do not believe in gun control and are most likely sympathetic to National Rifle Association’s causes to promote gun ownership; they probably support prayer in school and they are all for school segregation. They won’t admit to it that they don’t favor equal opportunity employer clause of the U.S. constitution. They favor faith-based charity, the one lately promoted by Mr. George W. Bush. One more thing that I forgot to mention about “Sons of Ronald Reagan’ is: they think they are the only champion of patriotism. Thus, in their mind they are the only flag-waving patriots in America. The ‘Secular group’ holds the view that one does not have to attend church religiously (no pun intended) and carry guns to show their overt patriotism. The followers of this group believe in the total good of the society as opposed to a narrow section of the society dominated by rich and affluent people. People belonging to this group strongly held the view tax burden should be borne by all citizens. Many activists belonging to this group call themselves “Sons of America.”
The social commentator narrating the differences between the two opposing ideologues had opined in the NPR show that these two groups are in collision course. If a middle ground is not found in American society, then there may be some unforeseen problem. Intellectuals belonging to these two groups are fighting it out in the airwaves. America now has many talk radio shows scattered all over. One can hear either a conservative talk show host blabbering about the virtues of being a “Sons of Reagan.” On the other extreme, there are those ultra liberal talk show hosts who constantly complain how things are rotten in America and how God-fearing and church-going Republicans are taking the country to warpath by invoking Crusade. After 9-11, the moral majority Christian groups have become vocal all of a sudden. They are trying to exert their influence on George W. Bush, who certainly belongs to the conservative camp at least outwardly.
To gauge an idea where this society is headed, one should look at the upcoming election result slated for November 2004. If a majority of the folks, who are in the middle of this tug-of-war, sides with ‘Sons of Reagan,’ then Mr. Bush will come out victorious. On the other hand, if the same bunch moves towards “Sons of America,’ then, Senator Kerry, the Democratic candidate for President may win the election. American politics will be dominated by these two competing force no doubt. The interplay between the conservative and the liberals shapes the future of this great democracy. I sensed that even three decades ago when I first came to America to attend a graduate program in Molecular Biology. This great democracy was mired over Vietnam War issue and Mr. Richard Nixon who was better known in the campus as “Tricky Dick” (Dick is an abbreviated form of Richard) was manning the White House. The conservatives all sided with President Nixon and Secretary Henry Kissinger as the administration had escalated the war in Vietnam and extending it all the way to Cambodia. The liberals were not sitting idle either. The colleges and campuses were strongholds of liberal folks; the students and faculty members had expressed their disdain through innumerable peaceful protest march and sit in that resulted in National Armed Guards firing in Kent State University in Ohio causing death of 4 students in April or May 1970. Many extreme or hyper liberal youngsters in those turbulent days had joined the hippiedom and chanted “No War, Make Love” to show their disgust towards American jingoism.
I have seen the same rift between the liberals and conservatives in the seventies through now. During the presidency of Ronald Reagan the “Moral Majority’ Christian group used to paddle influence on White House to set the agenda for social reform and legislation. The influence of that group on Ronald Reagan at least outwardly may have contributed to the naming of ultra conservatives of America as “Sons of Ronald Reagan.” Since Ronald Reagan’s time, which ended in 1988, many public debates over school prayer, pledge of legion in school, banning of abortion, school de-segregation, gun control, civil rights issues, legalization of marijuana and other habit forming drugs, gay marriage, etc., have all but polarized the great American society. I am sure many other issues will emerge in the coming days to serve as a litmus test for liberalism and conservatism no doubt.
In my judgment, Americans did realize a long time ago that the interplay between liberals and conservatives would shape up their society. No monolithic idea will ever dominate the cultural and political milieu of this nation, which had become a vanguard of democracy. I wished many times that other nations including many emerging democracies on earth will follow the American model to develop their societies through the interplay of both liberal and conservative ideas for there are rooms for competing views in any society. The ongoing fight between the “Sons of Reagan” and “Sons of America” is a perfect example of how the interplay between two competing camps is shaping the future of a country that is in the forefront of modern civilization at this time, which is correctly attributed as being the American Century. ----------------------- Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist,
writes from
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
||||