Who Is Really Divisive?

With the death of liberalism, Newspeak has come into flower. The meanings of words have been turned on their heads so as to persuade voters that black is white and vice versa. A prime example is the strange transformation of the term of “divisive.”

During this past electoral cycle, Democrats repeatedly used it to describe president Trump.  He was thereby condemned for splitting the nation into hostile camps.  In the process, liberals implied that they were not disruptive; rather they were bringing us together.

Nonetheless, leftists have an odd way of reconciling our differences. Their strategy for finding common ground is to get everyone to adopt their outlook.  Compromise has nothing to do with their aims.  Convinced that every jot and tittle of their beliefs are correct, the only reasonable way to obtain unity is for their opponents to capitulate.

That this provokes resistance and is therefore divisive escapes their notice.  To the contrary, they are certain that they have a right to use whatever tactics they choose to impose a resolution on their terms.  If this requires increasing the differences between people, then so be it.

A case in point is political correctness.  Anyone who has a different idea about solving race-related issues is automatically labeled a racist. Insist on enforcing law and order, for instance, and this label is affixed.  And when it is, a person is scorned as beyond redemption.

Thus, how many times has Trump been castigated as a racist?   And yet, upon what evidence does this charge rest? For many, it is because he wants to exclude illegal aliens whose skin happens to be brown.  Does this, however, imply that discussions of immigration policy are out of bounds if they involve non-Caucasians?

Apparently it does.  The same is true of other policies, such as affirmative action.  Liberals are unwilling to entertain the possibility that people who disagree with them might do so in good faith.  These adversaries are instead derided as deplorables—as beyond the ken.

Is this any way to heal social schisms?  Does it bring people together or encourage honest deal making? Unquestionably not.  Nor does calling one’s opponents names or picketing their homes and shouting “we know where you live.”  These are threats, not invitations to civil negotiations.

To be divisive signifies “to divide.”  It pigeonholes people and thenceforth treats them differently.  When, for example, liberals identify all whites as benefiting from “while privilege,” they are saying these folks must be barred from power.  They need to be split off from the good guys.

Likewise, when Trump says he is a nationalist and wants to make America great again, he is derided as a “white nationalist.”  In other words, his offer of an olive branch is summarily rejected as insincere.  Ironically, this effort to unite is interpreted as an attempt to divide.

Sadly, as long as seeing the worst in our opponents persists, there can be no mending of political differences.  As long as liberals regard themselves as the sole guardians of moral rectitude, they will never admit to spawning factionalism.

Nonetheless, the resistmovement is all about division.  It is about never compromising.  The stratagem is not to agree, irrespective of the merits of the other side’s proposals.  As such, it erects impenetrable barriers that impose strict divisions.

For several years, I have been arguing that liberalism is dying. Its ambition of using the government to resolve every social problem has been found wanting.  This is because huge bureaucracies are not equipped to achieve complete harmony.  They are too rigid and impersonal.  Furthermore, those who control them are more concerned with their careers than the needs of those they are committed to help.

Our current social gridlock is thus a consequence of having adopted administrative methods that will not work.  They never can.  If liberals refuse to recognize this, they must remain intransigent—and, as a result, committed to maintaining social partitions.  This is the only way they can maintain their group identity.

But conservatives should not be too smug.  An unfettered free market will not work either.  It has been tried and failed; hence it is time to rethink how we address the myriad challenges of our post-industrial affluence.

Regrettably, we are destined to remain at knifepoint unless we realize no one can win unless we change our collective directions.  If we don’t let go of outdated perspectives, we will continue to do battle until we all burn out.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University