5.  WHY WE MUST DISCUSS A POST-WAR U.S.: PEACE IS HELL
    by Wendy McElroy 
    Special to TLE      http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/>     Issue 219

Discussion buzzes about a post-Saddam Iraq but few people are talking about
a post-Saddam United States. We should be. Because the political rifts in
our society may be as difficult to deal with as the ones with the Arab
world, and they hit closer to home. We need a better approach for dealing
with dissent and diversity.

The war in Iraq creates a sense of unity, with
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030403.asp> Gallup Polls
showing that Bush's overall job approval rating rose to 71% after the
conflict began, up 13 points from the pre-war 58%. Historically, however,
support for post-war administrations decline. This is especially true
during hard economic times and when society had been deeply divided before
war.

The polarization of politics lies under the surface. While hundreds of
thousands take to the streets across North America to protest the war, even
larger numbers participate in the fighting in some manner. On TV screens,
left and right pundits scream at each other and at guests about every
conceivable issue. Democrats still mutter about hanging chads and stolen
elections. And another election nears.

The divisions are more pervasive than pro- or anti-war, left or right,
Republican or Democrat. They are rooted in the way our society has come to
approach diversity and disagreement. Namely, it is not to be tolerated.
Disagreement is an indication of "evil" motives and the person
disagreeing should be reviled and, then, silenced.

This approach to dissent owes a great deal to political correctness -- the
political doctrine that declares certain ideas, attitudes, and peaceful
behaviors are improper and, therefore, should be prohibited by law. The law
should encourage correct ideas, attitudes and behaviors instead.

For example, because it is improper ("evil") to consider women to
be either inferior to men or to occupy a separate sphere, discrimination
against women should be prohibited. Affirmative action should be enforced.
It doesn't matter if the discrimination is relatively trivial and involves
only private property. Martha Burk's crusade against Augusta National Golf
Club's male-only membership policy demonstrates that.

Thus, "being correct" becomes politically essential because
"being incorrect" leads to the law exercising a control over your
decisions, attitudes, property...over your life. It means the law denies to
you opportunities that you may have earned through hard work -- like entry
into a university or promotion on a job -- because you have the
"incorrect" skin color or genitalia.

When a society is structured so that one person gains only by depriving
another of what is rightfully his or hers, then that society is a brawl
waiting to happen. When laws and imposed policies treat people differently
based on  race and gender, it creates class warfare and resentment. It
embeds conflict into the very structure of society and blocks goodwill.

It is tempting to join the slugfest and I have succumbed more than once.
This column is the result of successfully resisting.

With the Masters golf tournament looming this Thursday, I had intended to
write about Martha Burk's tax-paid conduct
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray033103.asp> at a recent
woman's conference in Estonia where she represented the US. There, Burk
toasted to having a "different president" by the next conference,
lectured the audience on how American women are "second class
citizens," and generally dissed the US.

The theme of my intended column was "stop the tax funding of
feminism!" Just as there is a separation of religion and state on
matters of funding so, too, should there be a separation of political
ideology and state. That message would have ridden on the back of a blast
against Burk.

But I realized that another anti-Burk diatribe would just add to the noise.
No one's opinion of Burk would be altered. And the theme of the article
would be cheapened.   Moreover, I was adopting the strategy of political
correctness: to attack people, using outrage as argument. An approach that
demonstrates contempt for facts, evidence ... and truth itself.

Political correctness -- as expressed in both laws and strategies that
punish disagreement -- is a legacy of the social upheaval surrounding
America's last major war -- Vietnam. The anti-Vietnam war protests were a
breeding ground for many of the movements that dominated politics in the
following decades. For example, mainstream feminism grew directly out of
the anti-war movement. And through political evolution, a New Left emerged,
wielding political correctness as a sword.

Society may soon become a great deal more contentious. War and terrorism,
the shaky economy, the upcoming elections, a lessening of goodwill around
the globe ... all these factors and more are making people short tempered
and shrill.

No one can predict what social changes will come in the wake of war. No one
could have predicted the radical movements that arose under the
anti-Vietnam banner or how destructive those movements would become. All
that can be said is that any war will create change at home. Anyone who
wishes the direction to be positive, including me, has an obligation to
ratchet down the rhetoric.

"Winning the peace" in Iraq is a media focus. The domestic peace
is equally important and it will depend upon an atmosphere of respect for
dissent and diversity. This means eliminating both the laws that punish
attitudes and the imposed policies that discriminate. It means substituting
facts and evidence for personal attacks. In dealing with family, friends
and neighbors who disagree ... give peace a chance.
- - -

Visit my home page and blog at http://www.zetetics.com/mac> drop by
ifeminists.com http://www.ifeminists.com> For photo (05/02/02)
http://www.zetetics.com/mac/vesuvio.jpg>

---