De Universitate
Dear Editor:
The events of the last few weeks in world, national, and local affairs has caused me to ponder much about unity and division. Frankly, I do not fear enemies without. In our history and indeed in the history of the world, the most dangerous enemy has always been within, the internal dissent or the fifth column. The words University, from the Latin Uniuersitas, meant a union, as is reflected in student union buildings and associated student organizations. This union represented a certain willingness to come together for a common purpose. We likewise have come together for the purpose of education and exchange.
Lately, though, there has been great dissention and not of the kind that leads to greater understanding and learning. I am no alarmist. Certainly the nation is very divided, but I cannot say that it is any worse than other divisive perionds in our history, though I tend to feel that it is among the worst.
Regardless, divisiveness is not new, and its tangential issues do not change. When the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific arrived near Promontory Point in Utah, they built miles of parallel tracks, achieving aboslutely nothing, just arrongantly building tracks to nowhere.
Like these myopic railroad builders, the polarized pundits and partisans argue ad infinitum ad absurdam. Too often, they are not even arguing in the same reality. Each assumes a world view, not derived from some objective standpoint, for no such purely objective view exists. Rather, they believe faithfully that the world is a certain way and it is my belief that neither nor any of the worldviews expressed by our political and institutional leaders is wholly correct. However, believing the world to be a certain way, they extrapolate policy and behavior appropriate thereto and it must be said that each of these systems is perfectly rational in its own sphere. But logic is a double edged sword and it cuts both ways. Reason and logic and debate are only really useful when the interlocutors have the same assumptions about the world. Otherwise, they are like railway workers building tracks to nowhere in the sand.
My point is that we are arguing wrong. We must first find those points of convergence and diverngence in our basic assumptions before we can ever begin to have effective dialogue between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Mormons and non-Mormons, Muslims and Jews. We must realize that belief is often non-volitional and that there will come things upon which these factions can never agree nor reach consensus. It is impossible. Only if we all start believing the same, yet if – as pundits on both sides claim – we value diversity for its own sake, then we will never reach agreement.
America is expanding and the current growing pains can be either instructive or destructive. We need to find a common ground upon which the majority can agree and from which we can create the policies and laws that will govern this people during the next century. No one group can nor should impose their worldview, for such is neither conscionable to those who value agency and freedom in thought and speech, nor possible in a country as diverse as America.
My plea is that as we continue to debate the major issues dividing our parties and our faiths, that we will listen more than we talk, and pause more than we act. I do not have all the answers; I’m frankly not sure if I have any of them. I am simply pleading for civility, for respect, for understanding, and for a modicum of patience in our debates. Shouting, name calling, and ignorant diatribes serve only to polarize those with whom we disagree and could tear our country apart.
Jonathan Barney