What really annoys me about all the talk about the mosque near Ground Zero is the amount of attention, energy, emotion and derision this issue has generated. For heaven’s sake – unemployment remains around 10%, natural calamities such as earthquakes, landslides, forest fires and the like are happening all over this Earth, Pakistan is becoming a very dangerous nation-state (not that it hasn’t been for decades), the war in Afghanistan is going poorly because Afghanistan is Afghanistan, America seems incapable of truly controlling its borders, keeping illegal immigrants out and inducing employers only to hire individually lawfully in this country, America’s hegemony is on the wane, and here we’re in another cat fight, dog fight or firefight, whatever you wish to call it, over the building of a mosque as part of a cultural center in lower Manhattan close to Ground Zero.
Yes, I remain a Democrat and from where I sit this looks like another attempt by the opposition, call them Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party members or the like, to turn attention away from these real issues and focus on a so-called hot-button issue, something that isn’t that significant but gets peoples’ juices flowing. And, yes, because critics are appealing to emotions, Democratic politicians have also felt the heat and run for political cover.
This is not a situation akin to Nazis wanting to march in Skokie, Illinois, when Voltaire’s words were applicable: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. I’m sorry but no one has proffered evidence that those wanting to build the mosque and the cultural center are radical or fundamentalist Moslems bent on undermining the American way of life. Were there such evidence, or if it surfaces going forward, my view would be different. Would we so quickly condemn other groups in American society — Irish, Jews, Italians, Mormons, Greeks, Puerto Ricans — were they to step forward with a project to be built close to a horrific scene of murder, mayhem or other notoriety committed by individuals belonging to any of those groups but condemned by the group even had the misdeeds been done in the name of the group? Probably not.
I used to love politics even with all its contentiousness. But it truly has become a blood sport. Our last three presidents, Clinton, Bush and Obama, have hardly settled into office before their very legitimacy has been called into question. With Clinton it had to do with his draft status, smoking pot, then Whitewater and Lewinsky. With Bush it started with his election but then turned to Iraq and his Vice President. With Obama it started with race, morphed into his place of birth, and now touches everything he does, says or doesn’t do or say.
Instead of truly grappling with the American economy in order to keep it strong and vibrant in the face of stiff competition from China and the rest of Asia, solving the illegal immigration problem through resolute action, addressing healthcare and the needs of all Americans, being honest and serious about global warming, creating a realistic energy policy that weans America from fossil fuels, we spend our time on petty issues, personal attacks, and the like, and by “we” I not only mean our political leaders, such as they are, but the rest of us as well.
I am not preaching for false unity. There is not only room for healthy debate, there is a necessity for it. How do we seek “to grow” the economy (a phrase I detest for its grammar or syntax)? Would we have been far worse off without the stimulus or has mounting federal debt undermined economic recovery, and where do we go from here? How do we effectuate a successful immigrant policy? Should corporations be able to contribute to political campaigns as if they were individuals with First Amendment rights? Does the constitutional right to bear arms prevent localities from limiting the spread of handguns? Is Afghanistan a war America simply cannot win and does that mean a return of the Taliban and suppression of women?
We need partisan debate on these and other issues, but with civility, mutual respect, and an intent by all to try to reach solutions, usually through compromise. Is that asking for too much?
