Bipartisanship: What the Congo Can Teach America

While reading Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible this week, I found myself engrossed in a salient political commentary that every American, legislators and voters alike, can learn from (for a summary of the book, click here).

In Kilanga, the village where the Price family carries out their mission, public decisions are made not by majority vote, but by complete agreement.  The chief meets and discusses with villagers until everyone is content with the decision.  After the Congo gains independence from Belgium in June 1960, however, the villagers of Kilanga become enamored with elections and the democratic process.  Soon, they are voting during a church service on whether they should follow Nathan Price and his Christian teachings, or voting in a tense village meeting on whether Leah, one of the Price daughters, will be allowed to participate in the village hunt.  As democracy becomes the new fad in the village, divisions arise, tensions heighten, and what should have been a festive post-hunt gathering became a town fight, with elections springing up left and right over every minute conflict.  Ultimately, the unity that kept the village together for ages dissolves, just as the rest of the Congo falls into discord.

Clearly, the democratic process did not work to the benefit of the villagers.  Although democracy functions (for the most part) in Western nations, the idea of a simple majority rule serves to split apart villages and tribes in the Congo that rely on total unity to face extreme existential threats from nature and, well, their Western colonizers.  Historically speaking, the election of Patrice Lumumba as Prime Minister of the Congo in 1960 and the factional divisions that followed threw the fledgling nation into a spiral from which it has yet to escape.

The tendency of democracy and elections to incite division in the Congo draws parallels to today's political environment in the United States.  Today's Congress finds itself so paralyzed by partisanship and obstructionism that barely anything can get passed, and nothing of substance, it seems.  The American population is deeply divided, and between liberals and Tea Party-ers there seems to be little common ground.  Whichever way the midterm elections go, the only certainty is that a large sect of the population will be discontented, and tensions will rise.  Bipartisan compromise has given way to stubborn ideology, reasonable dialogue to hateful attacks.  In fact, Tata Kuvudundu's (Kilanga's medicine man) ad hominem attacks on Anatole, a friend of Leah's, resembles starkly the political attack ads of today.

Yesterday, Jim Kennedy, a former spokesman for democrats such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore, wrote in The Huffington Post an imagined speech by President Obama called "Give Bipartisanship a Chance."  In it, "Obama" calls for a cease-fire on attacks from both the Democrats and Republicans, a "unity of purpose" to "redeem [the American people's] trust in us."  Kennedy acknowledges that partisanship and political games are an integral part of the enfranchisement and decision-making process of Americans, but also that these very games, when taken to today's extreme, are detrimental to the nation.  Some, like Paul Krugman, argue that Obama and the democrats have attempted bipartisanship in the past, but that the Republicans are undyingly obstructionist.  Although there is some truth to that, the fact is that only with compromise and mutual understanding can the United States face the myriad issues of today.

The Poisonwood Bible, in narrating the disintegration of Kilanga, offers a powerful literary example of why simple majorities do not always fit the bill.  Our politicians would be wise to listen and learn. 

In Us vs. Them, Everyone Loses

Before I begin this week's post, I must offer you this disclaimer: I am Jewish.  I believe completely and whole-heartedly in Israel's right to exist and prosper.  I make my following arguments not to hurt Israel; rather, I critique Israel because I love Israel.

With that, let us begin...

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu offered to extend the moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank (a practice the UN has found to be in violation of Palestinian sovereignty) if Palestinian leaders were to officially recognize Israel as a Jewish state.  The Palestinians immediately refused.

Yesterday, the Israeli cabinet approved the addition of a "loyalty oath" to citizenship laws that would require every non-Jew applying for citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state and democracy.

These are just two in a slew of Israeli policies and positions emerging to further restrict the rights of Arabs, 20% of Israel's population, incite resistance and violence, prevent a peace agreement, and undermine the very values upon which Israel was formed.  By forcing Arabs seeking citizenship to swear allegiance to a nation that has shown it does not want them while simultaneously showing disregard for the sovereignty of Palestinian territory, Israel is inhibiting negotiations of a peace agreement and the eventual, much-needed two-state solution.  Indeed, by insisting on one controlling state that denies Arabs equal rights and the right of self-determination, Israel endangers the survival of the very values the loyalty oath was created to defend: Israel as both a Jewish and democratic state.

If Israel hopes to fulfill its Zionist mission, it must avoid and reverse the "us vs. them" ideology that has come to plague its policies.  While history offers us many examples of the failure of this ideology, I refer you instead to a valuable piece of literature that I'm reading in my English class: The Poisonwood Bible, by Barbara Kingsolver.

The Poisonwood Bible follows the Prices, a 1960s Baptist family from Georgia, on a mission to the Belgian Congo (for a more complete summary, click here). The Price family, led by the Reverend Nathan, struggles to adjust to life in the Congo, to understand the Congolese people, to recognize the incompatibility of Christianity with the village's way of life, and to accept the legitimacy of the Congo's autonomy and independence.  Several of the daughters, but Nathan especially, enter the Congo choosing ignorance and isolation from the native culture rather than understanding and accepting it. As the Prices become the last white family in their village and in much of the Congo, their strict us vs. them dichotomy serves to only further endanger them and inhibit them from realizing any of their goals -- personal, religious -- or even to survive.

Israel now faces a choice, as it always has to an extent, between the "us vs. them" view that both history and literature teaches us is destined to fail, or a measured and pragmatic negotiation of its current position in order to salvage its long-term viability.  Again, Israel today cannot be both a Jewish state and a democracy.  If it embraces and favors only Judaism, it strips equal rights from a significant sect of the population, and therefore is not a democracy; if it gives equal rights to all the Arabs in its territories, Jews will soon loose their demographic majority in the region and loose control, thus eliminating the Jewish state.  Israel cannot have both, just as Nathan cannot both force Christianity on the Congolese people and survive in a foreign country with few other whites and little independent means.

In the game of us vs. them, nobody wins.

A Loss for Identity, a Loss for America

Two weeks ago, the US Senate failed to pass a defense bill that would repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy on homosexuals in the military.  This policy, which allows gays to serve as long as their sexual orientation is not revealed, has led to the discharge of over 14,000 soldiers since its creation in 1993, including those with crucial skills in Arabic, medicine, and counterterrorism.  It discriminates against people for who they are, for something they have no control over.  It forces gay soldiers to hide their true identity, to live in paranoia for fear of being found out.  And, according to a recent federal court ruling, it is unconstitutional.

As Americans, we must push to end this discriminatory law; as young Americans, we must lead the charge.  Why?  I'll start with a story:

Jonathan Hopkins was a captain in the Army, graduated 4th in his West Point Class, and served three times in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He was discharged in April for homosexuality.  He writes in a New York Times blog of the debilitating paranoia and depression gay soldiers live with when anyone can report them as gay and inhibit their ability to serve their country.  DADT robs gay soldiers of the right to their own identity, forcing them to lie to protect a secret they cannot control.  When a soldier cannot be who he or she is, then how can he or she fulfill the duty of soldiers to be completely honesty with their fellow troops?  This "mandatory ignorance," as Hopkins calls it, works contrary to psychological well-being and success of soldiers, the values of the military, and, indeed, to the American values we hold most dear.

As I mentioned in my previous post, pop star Lady Gaga gave an impassioned speech in Maine on September 20th urging Maine's moderate Republican senators to repeal DADT.  “I’m here because ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is wrong. It’s unjust and fundamentally it’s against all that we stand for as Americans," she said.  She decried Republican Senators for using homophobia to justify discrimination and the military for rewarding homophobia and inhibiting openness.  She stands as a reminder of the responsibility young, open-minded Americans have to support equality and justice in our nation, an echo of the '60s students who fought for African Americans' rights and an end to the Vietnam War.

The fact that 44 senators can and have forced over 65,000 of our troops to continue hiding their true identity from the comrades with whom they live and die is an unacceptable crime against our American value system.  But the battle is not lost.  Federal courts around the country have declared the law unconstitutional and demanded its immediate end.  We have a president willing to cease its enforcement, if only Congress had the egalitarianism to repeal it.  And this is not only a liberal movement.  As a "Young, Hip, and Conservative" blogger notes, while DADT was a step in the right direction in 1993, it does not reflect the more tolerant military and society of 2010.  With 79 percent of 18-29 year olds, the age of most soldiers, supporting an end to DADT, and 70% of all Americans, the time is now to repeal.

America has always moved towards equality, with the young often leading the way.  DADT is detrimental to identity, cohesiveness, our constitution, and our nation.  Discrimination must end; equality must prevail!

And, as Lady Gaga said, "If you don't like it, go home."