Let he who is without sin... or something of that nature.

The bizarre thing about modern partisanship is how often it is lamented on both sides. One would think that, if both sides hated fighting so much and wanted to make steps towards some kind of unity, then they would stop the damn fighting. Find common ground then, damn-it! Democrats could read that statement and think, “yeah, filthy Republicans: compromise!” Republicans could read that statement and think, “yeah, filthy Democrats: find common ground!”

The frustrating thing about the politics of division runs twofold:

1) Propaganda machines on both sides of the debate are effective in churning out new automatons each day who robotically tow the party line. The intelligent members of any community should be ashamed of any missed opportunity to question a party’s established beliefs, just because they mesh well, and are comfortable for said members. Throw away your party book, which produces eerily consistent ideologies between members on both sides. People have mocked me for my left-of-center approach to politics, and I end up laughing (or crying?) inside, because said people sound like they’re reading from a party book, instead of forming their own conclusions. (I have often said as much).

The second point requires a longer explanation.

2) The deteriorating presence of accountability in modern politics is a betrayal of the principles set forth by the principle architects of democracy. This relates to personal and national accountability. Instantly, people from opposing groups would read that sentence (hypothetically, if this blog had a readership over 1 person), and think, “yes, the other guy really needs to be accountable.” That kind of blame-shifting mentality prevents people on all levels from growing. The consequence of shining the light on oneself can only be positive.

I’m not talking about the politics of self-deprecation (an accusation that some of my friends would jokingly levy against Canada, I’m sure). I’m talking, instead, of asking the simple questions: what did I do wrong? Could I have done something to prevent this?

At risk of being excommunicated from the western world, allow me to reflect my theory on 9/11. The immediate response to 9/11 (besides hope against all odds, the unity of a community under attack and the like) was anger, revenge, retaliation. Rightfully so. Such a response is to be expected in the wake of that kind of horrific attack. (I am also fully aware that I’m writing this in the relative safety and comfort of my living room, never having experienced the horror on a fraction of the degree of a 9/11-scale atrocity, and no disrespect is intended.) But U.S. citizens who shone the light on America and asked, “what could we have done to prevent this?” are branded as unpatriotic, daring to impugn the infallibility of a nation under attack (worse than insulting a soldier for any reason). These kinds of questions are fair and important. A rational person would never ask, “did we deserve this?” No human deserves to be murdered, in any manner. Ever. But it is not a bad thing to try to learn from an event like 9/11. Punish the perpetrator, yes, but also learn.

An analogy of a father and son comes to mind, where the son is caught stealing and the father has to deal with the fallout. The father would rightfully punish the child, all the while asking himself, “could I have raised him better?” Thus, it would inform the father’s child-rearing skills in the future.

There is no harm in learning from history. There is no danger in questioning your government leadership. Accountability is a core value of democracy. There is nothing wrong with thinking, “hey, maybe we did something to piss people off and sent them flying into our buildings.” Justifiable action? No. But 19 hijackers didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to fly missiles into the U.S. for no reason. There was a reason they chose the U.S., but few people want to explore the foreign policy cocktail (which dates back to WWI) that inspired these psychopaths to committ said acts. Again, the analogy is crude, but spank the child and also analyze your parenting techniques.

Question Iraq. It doesn’t make you unpatriotic. Quite the contrary. This goes for the “other side,” which could be interpreted as leftists or, as I intended it, the Muslim world, both radical and moderate, alike. Question the ethic of killing innocents, as it relates to the Qu’ran; as it relates to morality. Question your government, question the iconic terrorist leader. Run that question through your head: “is this the right thing to do?”

I understand the moral compass varies in different cultures, and there are degrees of cultural conditioning you have to overcome, but that’s what this post is about. It is an expression of frustration at those who never admit blame or question their actions. It is also an exhortation to initiate these practices on a personal and a national/cultural level.

It’s easy to yell past each other, when all you’re thinking about is how wrong the other side is. Once we realize that the other side is populated by human beings whose motivation is sometimes not that different from our own, it becomes easier to bridge that gap. The more we picture German soldiers impaling babies on a bayonet (a propaganda device used by the allies in both World Wars), the less human “they” become, and all of a sudden, it doesn’t feel like murder to kill a bunch of “them”. I think we can all agree, we need to make connections before we can move towards lasting peace, both within the western world, and between the west and the middle east.