The Danger of Political Sectarianism
The term “sectarianism” is generally understood to exist mostly - if not exclusively - in the realm of religion. Think of the splits or schisms between Sunni and Shia in Islam; betwixt Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox within the church; or between Sadducee, Pharisee and Essene in early Jewish history. These schisms could and did lead to isolation, recrimination and even violence. An aged Yiddish tale breaths a quaint satiric breath into the nature of religious sectarianism:
A ship traveling across an uncharted sea spots a funnel of smoke upon a distant uncharted island. Making their way there, they discover a very old Jewish man who, it quickly turns out, is the island’s only inhabitant. When asked how long he’s been on the Island, he admits to no longer remembering, but tells them he would be delighted to show them around - to all that he has accomplished in his many, many years of stranded solitude. He takes them on a tour of his home, showing them a beautiful orchard filled with fruit-bearing trees, a pasture with sheep and goats, a garden with numerous varieties of leafy plants and bulbs, and a hutch with dozens of egg-laying hens. At last he says, “If you will follow me to the other side of my island, I will show you the piece de resistance . . . my most prideful accomplishment.” So saying, they all make their way to the other side of the isle only to see two beautifully constructed lanai huts sitting atop carefully crafted hills of sand. They sit about 50 meters apart. “And what are these?” the old man is asked. “These are my two shuls - synagogues” he replies. “And why do you need two?” the captain of the ship asks. “Ah,” the old man smiles and responds . . . “this one is where I pray three times a day.” “And the other?” the captain inquires. “That one,” the elder responds, pointing in its direction, “that’s the one I would never step foot in!”
Religious sectarianism is an age-old plague that has produced a lot of pain, disagreement, dislocation and even death. It can lead to overwhelming certitude . . . or utter humility. As the Indian philosopher, poet and Nobel Prize winner Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) best expressed it, “The pious sectarian is proud because he is confident of his right of possession in God. The man of devotion is meek because he is conscious of God's right of love over his life and soul.” We can say nearly the same about the political sectarian . . . about being proud because he or she is utterly confident of possession in whomsoever is their leader. Look to the certitude of the Stalinist (who holds to “Socialism in one country”) as against that of the Trotskyite (who are adherents to the theory of “Permanent revolution”), the Maoist against the Leninist (wherein the peasantry are the revolutionary vanguard in pre-industrial societies rather than the proletariat) or today, of the Trumpeter over that of the garden-variety non-conspiratorial Republican or progressive Democrat. Indeed, one of the most baffling and worrisome aspects of contemporary politics is precisely this: insuperable, almost cultic sectarianism.
Today, American politics, in the words of the New York Times’ Nate Cohen “faces many challenges: New limits on voting rights. The corrosive effect of [disinformation]. The rise of domestic terrorism. Foreign interference in elections. Efforts to subvert the peaceful transition of power. And making matters worse on all of these issues is a fundamental truth: The two political parties see the other as an enemy.” As a result, those issues which at one time were subjects for debate - balanced budgets, lower taxes, a strong military - have become existential showdowns. Witness the chief - and extraordinary difference - between the 2020 national Democratic and Republican platforms: the former was chock-a-block with the minutiae of program (everything from what to do about the COVID-19 pandemic and the economy to climate change and the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure); the latter was literally non-existent. While Democrats ran on what they were for and presented what they hoped to accomplish, the Republicans ran on what they were against . . . what they warned an nauseum was the “ultra-leftist Socialism” of the Democrats versus the “Make America Great Again” populism of the Party of Donald Trump.
For better or for worse, Joe Biden insisted that the future depended on both parties working together. For those to his political left, it sounded wistfully Pollyannaish. But that’s been the Biden political zeitgeist for nearly half-a-century. But now that he has been in office for nearly 100 days, his definition of “bipartisanship” has morphed into something like “a successful bipartisan bill need not attract a single Republican vote.” As the Washington Post’s Ashley Parker recently noted, “Biden pushed his $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill through the Senate with the support of all 50 Democrats and nary a Republican, yet later declared it a resounding bipartisan triumph. The president and his advisers have also signaled that, while they are planning robust outreach to Republican lawmakers, they are prepared to pass his infrastructure plan on the votes of Democrats alone — and call it a bipartisan victory.” Truth to tell, Biden and his team have not forsaken bipartisanship; they’ve simply come to understand that Republican support need not come from members of Congress. Polls are showing increasing support for much of the Biden agenda from Republicans who are not elected to office.
Something is at work here that few Trump-supporting Republicans seem to grasp. Has it dawned on them that it’s been a long, long time since they captured a majority of the presidential vote? Or that continuing to run on a negative platform which stresses that which political psychologists call “collective victimhood” (e.g. that it is Whites who are far more endangered than people of color, and that unless radical changes are made, America will soon become a “majority-minority country”) . . . that continuing to run to the political beat of this populist/nationalist/white supremacist beat is akin to an extended “Groundhog Day.”
To return to the Times’ Nate Cohen, he concludes that “Whether religious or political, sectarianism is about two hostile identity groups who not only clash over policy and ideology, but see the other side as alien and immoral. It’s the antagonistic feelings between the groups, more than differences over ideas, that drive sectarian conflict.”
American democracy is at a dangerous crossroads . . . for both Democrats and Republicans alike. For Democrats, the task is to stay positive, keep active and turn a blind eye and deaf ear the tortures of vilification. In this way, they may be able to gain even more support from the shops and residences of Main Street U.S.A. For conservative Republicans, their task will be far more difficult. First, to ask themselves what precisely they mean to “conserve,” and how to sell it, and second, what to do about Donald Trump. For as sure as shooting, he is not the answer; he is the predicament. The former POTUS is like a fire: stand too close and you get burned; stand too far away and you are out in the cold.”
Copyright©2021 Kurt F. Stone