Skip to Content

Deep political divides can lead to despair — or to action

Elizabeth NagelElizabeth Nagel

Bonnie Blodgett wrote a column in the Star Tribune that explored the economic issues facing this country. Her interesting premise was that “fascism is capitalism without boundaries” — and that we are spiraling into becoming a country ruled by fascism.

Blodgett related how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, born wealthy, understood that part of Wall Street was a gambling mentality that included outwitting federal regulation. Thus, he established the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), giving the country its longest period of financial stability. Blodgett believes today’s economic slide began with President Ronald Reagan’s deregulation of “pesky governmental red tape and impediments to the consolidation of everything from banking to agriculture.”

Blodgett’s theory is just one of many theories trying to explain the deep divide in this country — and why Congress has been polarized into paralysis. Whether you buy her interpretation of history or not probably does not depend on the validity of her argument. Rather, your response to her thoughts hinges on how you view the connection between politics and economics.

Democracy 'in its death throes'

It was the last paragraph in her column that caught me up short. She said that economics always overrules politics. But it was her statement that “Our democracy is now in its death throes” that was frightening.

Our democracy is now in its death throes? How could democracy be dying in my beloved country? A country where democracy and America are so wedded together.

A Washington Post columnist, E.J. Dionne, proposes another theory. He takes a long look at this country’s history to find explanations for the deep polarization. In his newest book, "Our Divided Political: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent," he explores the complex factors of how we have arrived at this place of deep division. He believes that tension between our desire for freedom as individuals and the need for “a self governing community” are basic components of our historical DNA.

For those who would like to hear more about how he arrived at his conclusions, Dionne will speak at Westminster Town Hall Forum on June 15, at 7 pm. in Minneapolis. At least in his writing, there are possibilities that might lead to solutions – rather than the dire prediction for the future suggested by Blodgett.

A worldwide phenomenon

However, such deep divisions are not an American phenomenon. Go almost anywhere in the world and you will confront the same issues. Only names of religions or politicians vary from place to place. Likewise, definitions of who is seen as enemy and the level of instability depends on where you live.

In some places, a war of words separates people. In other places, words are replaced with guns. People are dying under horrible circumstances — all for the right to impose one set of premises on entire populations.

No matter what a person believes, there are enough theories about the path the world is taking to give everyone the choice of a theory to fit their particular perspective. Some of the theories make sense. Some of them are chilling in their prognosis. Other theories predict an apocalyptic future.

Sometimes I want to cover my eyes and my ears. Stop listening to the news. Hide out somewhere, anywhere that seems safe — if such a place even exists. It is so easy to get sucked into despair in the heat of political arguments — and in the teetering of the stock market, unemployment, legislators vacating their seats because the governing process is not working, the reality of killing massacres, and all the other issues facing us today.

Daring to challenge

Manal al-Sharif covers herself in accordance with the customs of Saudi Arabia. But last summer, she dared to challenge the Saudi edict that forbids women to drive. She took her protest one step further — and uploaded a video clip of her driving around the city of Riyadh on YouTube. She was arrested, held without charges for nine days, and released after only after considerable international pressure.

On June 17, Women2Drive Campaign is planning a second major protest against the driving ban. Al-Sharif believes that such protests can empower women who are silenced in her country But she won’t join them because she fears for her family’s safety.

However, she has not stopped speaking out. She was invited to speak this May in Norway at the Oslo Freedom Forum, a human-rights conference. There she was given an award for “creative dissent.” However, price for speaking out was a high one — going to the conference cost al-Sharif her job.

She ended her speech at the forum by saying that the “rain begins with a single drop.”

Her words and courage draw me back to some words I wrote a while ago:

 

some people fall off edges

while other people push edges

 

some people dance in circles

while other people ask questions

 

some people are easily forgotten

while some people are unforgettable

 

some people are all it takes

to change the world

Elizabeth Nagel is a Twin cities writer and poet. She teaches writing in various commuity settings. She and her husband maintain a blog, nagelandnagel.blogspot.com.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

Write your reaction to this piece in Comments below. Or consider submitting your own Community Voices commentary; for information, email Susan Albright

Related Tags:

Comments (5)

"Fascism is capitalism without boundaries?"

Bonnie Blodgett's belief that "fascism is capitalism without boundaries" is misguided to say the least.

You have nothing to fear from capitalism, restrained or not. Capitalism is nothing more than people buying and selling goods and services. It's a completely voluntary activity. More importantly, capitalism is impossible without the right to private property which makes it a function of free societies. Ask anyone who's lived in slavery or under totalitarianism if there's such a thing as too much freedom.

The real "theory" you should be fearing is "totalitarianism is government without boundaries." I suppose an advantage of totalitarian societies is the absense of political dissent and debate if that is really your concern.

Perhaps nothing to fear from the textbook definition

of capitalism, your description actually sounds quite utopian. Maybe the more accurate statement would be "fascism is corporatism without boundaries".

Even so, when capitalism includes such voluntary activities as cited in Ms. Nagels second paragraph to the extent it can literally crash not only the US but the world economy, capitalism cannot be considered a benign theory.

Certainly totalitarianism is not desirable, particularly if government is really just a facade to our developing oligarchy/corporatocracy. Of course I haven't seen anyone running on a Totalitarian platform just yet. But it is interesting that, I guess it's a Libertarian POV, that completely relegates "government" to something so separate from "the people" that it can be personified as inherently evil. Worthy of fear. When in actuality government is merely a society's formalized extension of "of/by the people". The designated referee to the rules of the game.

You could probably find agreement that the game is much less fun if the ref has been bribed. Now where did I put that last listing of SuperPAC dollars raised...

"What we're seeing is .. . .Capitalism without boundaries"

I understand what Ms. Blodgett is trying to say and I agree with her. I'd call it "plutocracy" or the capture of the government by the wealthy elite and use of it for their own purposes, but "capitalism without boundaries" or "fascism" work too rather than totalitarianism. The other version of totalitarianism-Communism- is not a concern any longer, is it?

I'm not personally as pessimistic as Ms. Blodgett. Before Reagan was elected, I thought that by now, this country would have come further along toward a more European style Social Democracy than we have come. But it's important to not forget that we came as far as we did because people understood and accepted what needed to be done to put "boundaries around Capitalism." Unfortunately, the right wing has set this country's progress back about 100 years, so we're going to have to do the whole thing over again. Assuming the human species does not become extinct first.

I certainly don't disagree with Mr. Tester's fundamental notion about "capitalism", freedom and private property. I believe capitalism, freed from the financial bloodsuckers that are now feeding on it, will solve many of the problems. Where I differ from Mr. Tester and his fellow right wingers, is that we have nothing to fear from capitalism where capitalism today is Goldman Sachs, Koch Industries, Citigroup, BankofAmerica, Well Fargo, KGB Root-Halliburton, Monsanto, Cargill or the other corrupt corporate excrescences calling the shots. These monstrosities have no proper place in a free, capitalistic country like ours.

The right wing feels that the absence of political dissent, debate and free speech is an "advantage." I never thought I'd see any right winger admit that any more than I'd expect to see the Republican Party put making the US a "one party State" in its party platform in English. (it's there but it's in code).

Until the people who still think you can drift along between elections and then vote for the candidate wake up and realize it's not their country any more, things will drift in the direction Ms. Blodgett predicts. But, as Ms. Nagel says, "some people are all it takes to change the world."

"...if there's such a thing as too much freedom."

Indeed there is, and one doesn't have to think too hard to come up with examples.

In a society without laws and regulations, companies and individuals are free to do as much environmental damage as they please, usually for the purpose of making money. Environmental damage affects us all, therefore we have laws and regulations to limit what can be done.

In a society without a police force, the strong are free to prey upon the weak. While this may be the way nature functions, it is unacceptable in human society. Therefore we have laws, and police to enforce them.

In a society without adequate oversight of the financial system (to take a recent example that is all too familiar to all of us), the money handlers are free to gamble with other people's money, take outrageous chances, pump an instrument to their clients while shorting it amongst themselves in private, etc.; in short, to act irresponsibly in such a way as to cause financial meltdown - which damages the majority in order to allow a tiny, privileged minority to profit. This was tried in recent decades, and we are all suffering for it - thus we need laws and regulations governing these activites.

The list goes on and on, which is the very reason we have governments, laws, courts and police.

Absolute freedom would be fine if people always acted responsibly, morally and nobly. Flawed creatures that they are, they don't, and that is where theory fails.

Interesting post Elizabeth

Thank you for presenting it.

It would be enlightening to juxtapose the effects our major media have contributed to the historical and current state of divide. A divide which begs the question, are we now ready to be conquered?