Reconsidering ‘decency’ to politicize tragedy

Kicking the can: Bowdoin diversity does not reflect nation’s

Peoria, Illinois, is sometimes referred to as the most average city in America. It is home to Caterpillar Corporation, one of the largest manufacturers of heavy equipment in the world, which employs over 15,000 of the city’s 120,000 residents. A test for new products and services used to be, “will it play in Peoria?” Peoria is nearly 70 percent white, with African-Americans accounting for almost all the rest of the city’s population.
According to the 2010 census, the median income for a household in Peoria was $36,397, and incomes there have undoubtedly been hit hard by the 2008 financial crisis. In 2012, 51 percent of voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama, and 47 percent voted for Mitt Romney, closely mirroring the nation’s margin. Peoria is heartland America, incredibly average by most standards.
Here at Bowdoin, we often speak of our commitment to diversity and how we want to be representative of America. In October, the chairwoman of our Board of Trustees went so far as to say that Bowdoin now looks a lot like America. While that may be true compared to Bowdoin 20 or 30 years ago, it is dangerous to foster the idea that Bowdoin is a particularly diverse place or that Bowdoin is a cross-section of America.

Kicking the can: America the unilingual: Coke’s Super Bowl ad

I’ll be honest—when I heard Coca-Cola’s wholly inoffensive and now controversial Super Bowl commercial featuring the song “America the Beautiful” in multiple languages, I wasn’t actively watching the game. I was in the Union working, hearing the sounds from East Rutherford drifting out of the pub, and I was confused when I couldn’t understand the words to such a recognizable melody. I quickly realized exactly why, and refocused on my readings, thinking little of Coca-Cola’s cute nod to American pluralism as a way to sell soda.
I thought I was cynical about racism and xenophobia in America until I saw the subsequent uproar from certain circles calling the commercial un-American and calling Coca-Cola the “official soft drink of illegals crossing the border.” After seeing these reactions, I realized I had not been cynical enough.
I don’t think there could be anything less offensive than children singing a patriotic song. The commercial is an innocent reference to American multiculturalism and idealized inclusivity. Clearly, nativist pundits see it as their duty to squash the hopes of children who believe in the American Dream and replace their positive view of America with one of a nation of bellicose closed-mindedness.

Kicking the can

Reconsidering ‘decency’ to politicize tragedy

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

David Steury

Columnist

January 23, 2014

One topic that invariably comes up following a national tragedy is decency. What is “decent” public discourse regarding an event that has destroyed people, families and communities? Do we as individuals and as a nation offer our condolences and refrain from discussing the tragedy in anything but in a consoling way? Is it indecent to point out what can be done to prevent such a tragedy in the future?

There is one side that always comes out in favor of decency following a tragedy: whichever side whose argument is hurt by the event’s occurrence. Do not politicize this tragedy, they implore, respect those who are grieving and leave policy and politics for a less troubled time. They paint anyone who seeks to talk about such an event in any more than a soothing way as insensitive and divisive. They implore politicians not to drag the tragedy and those affected into the political fray.

If that is decency, then to hell with decency. When disaster strikes, perhaps the least productive thing we can do for the long-term benefit of society is to grieve with no eye towards what can be done to prevent such events from reoccurring. Silence does nothing to help us. If being “indecent’”means asking tough questions and requiring examination of the social standards and institutions that led, directly or indirectly, to the tragedy, then a dose of indecency is precisely what we need.

The reason that “politicizing tragedy” is so widely demonized by both the right and the left (though only when it suits them) is because it is such a powerful tool. Rejecting its presence in public discourse is the only defense available to a group whose argument has been hurt by tragedy. Tragedy is a political opportunity, and such an opportunity should not be allowed to pass in the name of staying above the fray. It is a time at which people are very receptive to meaningful change and are willing to work to prevent future catastrophes.

George W. Bush and the 107th United States Congress understood this. Following the tragedy of September 11, Congress and the president moved quickly to enact new legislation to protect the American people and prevent future attacks. Withholding judgment on the legislation in question—the Patriot Act—it is remarkable how quickly change was enacted. The legislation was introduced less than a month after 9/11 and was signed into law a mere 45 days after the attacks. Opposition to the law was minimal, and generally only came from staunch civil liberties activists. That lack of opposition stemmed from the shock of tragedy. We wanted something to change, by God, and change it did.

In many cases, victims want to make good on the opportunity to work towards positive change. One stellar example is Gabby Giffords’ campaign for stricter gun laws following her recovery from being shot in the head by a nut whom society had allowed to own a gun. She uses the tragedy that befell her as evidence that her views on an issue are correct, and advocates for substantial change that will prevent similar shootings from happening in the future.

What must be avoided after a tragedy is not politicization but pettiness. At the absolute opposite pole of the productivity spectrum from Gabby Giffords sits Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos who, following the Tucson shooting, wrote a tweet effectively blaming Sarah Palin for the rampage. His remarks were quickly and rightly denounced in the conservative press as asinine and crass. Commenting on tragedy in political discourse is polarizing and will invariably cause anger, so it must be done in a productive manner. Using tragedy to score cheap political points is counterproductive. Using it to make progress is the closest thing we can get to redemption.

Sometimes, intransigence in our political process can only be ended by tragedy. To allow a tragedy with a bearing on public policy to pass by politically unaddressed is to dishonor the victims and to endanger society in the future. While we must be very careful when politicizing tragedy, we cannot avoid the discussion of horrible events in politics by failing to address tough issues and maintaining the status quo. Following tragic events, I do not want to hear my leaders say how sorry they are. I want to hear what they’re going to do about it.

Comments are permanently closed.