Since the turn of the millennium, a dangerous trend of polarization has begun to have adverse effects on our country, the way politics is carried out, and on international relations. It has only been punctuated by September 11th and the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Such a trend can be found on campus, as people identify themselves in either the “Love Bush” or “Hate Bush” camp. It appears as though students increasingly tend to see things in a very black and white way: pro- or anti-Israel, pro- or anti-Iraq war/occupation, etc.

The success of a candidate such as Dean highlights this point: only with such a strong, extremely leftist group of people could Dean have amassed so much money and support. Likewise, in San Francisco’s mayoral election, the Democrat’s challenge was not from the right, but rather from further left. (The incumbent mayor wondered aloud how he could be for gay marriage, gun control and abortion choice and still be called a conservative.) Furthermore, Bush’s foreign policy also points at this polarization. People tend to be staunchly behind his foreign policy or staunchly against it. Rarely have I met someone who stands in between anymore.

However, this is not just a domestic epidemic. It has gripped the globe as well. European nations, namely Germany and France, increasingly define themselves no longer as our allies, but more so as “anti-Bush.” In Bush’s words, “You are either with us or against us.” The U.S. has formed new alliances and hostilities depending on the level of opposition to America a particular state displays.

Fanaticism across the world is seemingly at an all-time high. From New York to Bali, almost no region of the world has escaped suicide bombers or terrorist strikes in the last four years.

In the U.S. and abroad, people have abandoned pragmatism and reason for ideology and emotion. People seem to be adopting a “My Way or the Highway” attitude, not realizing all the shades of grey that exist in between. Statements such as, “The World Trade Organization is evil,” or, “America should use war against every country that does not fall into line,” are heard much more now than ever before. The neo-conservatives of the right cling to their ideology as much as the angry left does, but both sides swear the other side is insane. Passion has defeated reason.

The dangers of this type of thinking are grave indeed. The impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian situation delineates the point. More adverse effects are in store for the world if this trend continues. Polarization has begun to undermine decades-old alliances which have maintained order in the world for over 50 years.

More wars and instability will definitely occur in various regions of the world, as tends to be the case when reason, pragmatism and a willingness to negotiate are abandoned for emotion and passion. Should too many buttons be pushed in India and Pakistan over Kashmir, a fifth war since India’s independence would break out between them. Should North Korea rattle the saber too many more times near the Demilitarized Zone, a war would likely break out there as well. It is far too dangerous to abandon reason in this day and age.

Although it may make for colorful debates and draw attention to important problems and issues in our society and world, it is dangerous and ill advised to form any foreign policy or national policy that adheres to any doctrine, either on the far left or far right. Our government and country do not need any drastic changes to either side. Fine tuning, to be sure, is always welcome and needed, but the U.S. is not faced with any major problems requiring an extreme change of course.

Rather, a logical and pragmatic approach to decision-making is a far wiser method of conducting affairs which effect a deeply divided country and world. Justifying legislation and foreign policy based upon logic will garner much more support than justifying it in the name of an ideology. The greatest nations in history have never lost sight of this. States such as the U.S., Britain and modern-day China have valued pragmatism over their ideology, and have prospered as a result. Countries that ignored logic for ideology, such as the U.S.S.R., have and will fail. It is important to avoid that route.

The world has been well served when such level-headed philosophies guide international relations. This occurred during the 1990s under the centrist approach that Clinton and Blair took. Arguably, the Clinton era was one of the more stable and prosperous eras of our time as a result of his pragmatic approach. Reason, not emotion and ideology, guided that presidency.

It has become increasingly important for voters to rein in their leaders from continuing on an ideologically dominated path. That means the Bushes, Deans and Chiracs of the world should be removed from office. When voting in 2004, use your brain, not your heart.

 

Bobak Roshan ([email protected]) is majoring in international relations and political science.