Rightists
Reason for their Policies
by H.G. Gerjuoy
Regardless
whether they approve or disapprove, both Leftists and Rightists in
America will have to endure the consequences of America's policies; they
will prosper or suffer together. In this regard, their relationship resembles
a marriage. And like divorce, an irreconcilable rift between Left and
Right will almost certainly injure both.
Psychologist John Gottman has demonstrated
marriages tend to fail when either spouse is contemptuous of the other.
Contempt for another person is rarely appropriate. It is a major, often
insurmountable barrier to communication, let alone cooperation.
Unfortunately, some of my Leftist friends
believe America's Rightists' policies reflect madness, stupidity, or wickedness.
However, considering people crazy, dim-witted, or evil is contemptuous.
Though Leftists may disagree with Rightists like Vice-President Cheney
and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the latter are not stupid. I doubt
they are mad or wicked.
So, how do Rightists justify their policies
to themselves? I think I know. My Leftist friends may be surprised that
the justification is consistent with many Rightists being, though perhaps
mistaken, neither immoral nor unreasonable.
My wife and I were guests at a second-night-of-Passover
Seder. Our host introduced me to a gentleman who, he explained,
was a former coworker of Vice-President Cheney. I asked the gentleman
what he thought of Mr. Cheney. He said Cheney was the most intelligent
and creative man he ever met. He added that America's Cold War victory
was largely due to policies Cheney fathered, or at least provided obstetrical
services for.
Not surprisingly, considering his esteem
for Mr. Cheney and Cheney's role in recent world history, the gentleman
proved to be an enthusiastic supporter of President Bush. I am a fundamentalist
liberal. I assume that people with whom I disagree have reasons that,
at least in their own eyes, justify their positions. Therefore, rather
than argue with the gentleman, I probed for his reasons.
From the liberal talking-point list, I selected
the global environment's future - global warming, the ozone layer hole,
etc. I asked the gentleman whether he took seriously some scientists'
gloomy predictions. His reply flabbergasted me: he said he thought global
warming can't be stopped before a world climate catastrophe. He predicted
massive crop failures, famine, and widespread economic disruption.
He was similarly pessimistic about the HIV
pandemic, the population explosion, and the economic prospects of the
poor worldwide, including those in the USA. He told me he expects the
world to exhaust inexpensive hydrocarbon fuel by the middle of the century,
and he foresaw no substitute that could prevent economic collapse.
I commented that American voters would turn
against a government that failed to avert the calamities he anticipates.
He replied that the public won't notice what is happening until it is
too late. He added, "We're going to entertain them to death."
I suggested such calamities would undermine
democracy. Did he foresee a new feudal age in which an all-powerful elite
would rule impoverished masses?
He answered: "Yes."
When he said that, I experienced a flash
of enlightenment.
The Right includes plutocratic pragmatists
and Christians who think Armageddon is imminent. Members of both factions
disregard the Left's standard Repent-for-the-Cataclysm-is-Coming sermon
and favor policies that hasten the forecasted misfortunes, for example:
not supporting the Kyoto protocol; cutting support for family planning;
taxes that increase the gap between rich and poor; and cutting funding
for basic research in, e.g., energy development, agriculture, and disease
prevention.
Christians who anticipate Armageddon think we cannot solve the world's
problems by natural, secular means.
Like the gentleman I met, many plutocratic
pragmatists are deeply pessimistic about humanity's future; they feel
calamity is inevitable. I don't think the prospect of a new dark age pleases
them, but they see no way to prevent it. They want at least to ensure
that in the coming feudal society their descendants will be among the
masters, rather than among the serfs. I think this determines which policies
they support. While clearly not all Rightists are so fatalistically pessimistic,
I think there are enough to skew Rightist policy.
(I interrupt to stress that, as a fundamentalist
liberal, like Nellie Forbush in "South Pacific," I am a "cockeyed
optimist.")
If pessimistic plutocratic pragmatists were
saintly, they would seek to ensure that the most qualified would become
the future masters; but considering their expectations, that they seek
the best possible life for their grandchildren is hardly depraved.
Liberals should neither mock nor demonize
such people. Instead, we should challenge their pessimism. We should reassure
them that the future need not be bleak; that the problems humankind faces
can be solved, and the chances of solving them will be heightened by cooperation
between Right and Left.
Why do I think problems many consider insolvable
can be solved? Consider the following scenario based on the Columbia
disaster. Now, please understand: I don't believe this scenario.
It is illustrative fiction, not conspiracy theory. Suppose, shortly
after Columbia's lift-off, NASA's senior staff concluded the damaged spacecraft
was doomed. Suppose, further, they decided to withhold their conclusion
from both the crew and the public because they feared that broadcasting
their conclusion would degrade important work the crew could still do
before the (what NASA considered) inevitable catastrophe, which would
occur in the space mission's final minutes. NASA's administrators might
also have considered they just might be wrong: spaceship and crew might
return uninjured. In that case, mistakenly announcing impending disaster
could have caused a worse public relations fiasco than the spacecraft's
disintegration occurring without warning.
(Remember: this is fiction, not conspiracy
theory.) In this scenario, the NASA senior staff disregarded that aboard
the Columbia were extraordinarily resourceful and creative individuals.
True, repairing the spacecraft would have required an impossible spacewalk
using unavailable equipment to perform impossible repairs. However, who
knows what that crew might have improvised if they had known their lives
were at stake?
I repeat: I don't believe there was any
such conspiracy. However, I fear some Rightists may be making a similar
error. Global calamity threatens. Among us billions, in this time of technologically
facilitated communication, might there not be people whose insights might,
combined with those of America's leaders, help beget solutions to humankind's
"insolvable" problems, solutions our nation's leaders, working
alone, would overlook?
America's leaders should spell out the gravity
of the problems we face, and then propose worldwide cooperation developing
innovative solutions. I try to understand why our country's leaders have
not done this. Are they more optimistic than their plutocratic supporters?
Are they afraid that, compared to the costs
of the world sinking into a new feudalism, tragic as that would be, the
consequences of the masses realizing the gravity of the situation would
be worse? Are they afraid that publicizing the dire prospect might lead
to destructive competition for dwindling resources? To me, such concern
seems unreasonable. I have faith in the collective good sense of humankind,
our capacity for cooperative sacrifice. Perhaps our leaders don't. Liberals
should, therefore, argue that humans can be counted on.
Do Rightists believe the social Darwinian
notion that today's front-runners in global economic competition are superior
to the rest of Homo sapiens? Success in global competition depends
at least as much on opportunity as it does on genes or cultural heritage.
For example, many prominent Americans, Canadians, and Australians descend
from criminals and outcasts who were failures in the societies from which
they came - or were exiled from. Liberals should therefore advocate cooperating
with the world's poor.
The Left should also not disregard potential
contributions from the Right. Many Rightists display poise, adroit response
to political challenge, and brilliant understanding of human nature.
To pessimistic plutocratic pragmatists,
I say:
The policies you favor would be moral and
reasonable if your pessimism about humankind's future were justified.
However, my response is to be an anti-Jeremiah. I think you make a mistake
to which able, intelligent people are liable. You are so accustomed to
being right when others are wrong that it is difficult for you to grasp
you may have overlooked solutions, particularly solutions that might derive
from cooperating with people perhaps less able than you.
I respect your judgment that humankind faces
many difficulties. However, I consider these difficulties challenges.
Act from hope instead of despair. Act from respect for humankind rather
than contempt. Act from faith in human goodness rather than fear of human
selfishness. Join me in daring gloriously. You need not be Darth Vader.
You can play a wonderful new role as prophet of worldwide enlightened
human cooperation, dedication, justice, and hope. What better legacy for
your heirs?
