Since the turn of the millennium, a dangerous trend of
polarization has begun to have adverse effects on our country, the
way politics is carried out, and on international relations. It has
only been punctuated by September 11th and the U.S.-led war in
Iraq.

Such a trend can be found on campus, as people identify
themselves in either the “Love Bush” or “Hate Bush” camp. It
appears as though students increasingly tend to see things in a
very black and white way: pro- or anti-Israel, pro- or anti-Iraq
war/occupation, etc.

The success of a candidate such as Dean highlights this point:
only with such a strong, extremely leftist group of people could
Dean have amassed so much money and support. Likewise, in San
Francisco’s mayoral election, the Democrat’s challenge was not from
the right, but rather from further left. (The incumbent mayor
wondered aloud how he could be for gay marriage, gun control and
abortion choice and still be called a conservative.) Furthermore,
Bush’s foreign policy also points at this polarization. People tend
to be staunchly behind his foreign policy or staunchly against it.
Rarely have I met someone who stands in between anymore.

However, this is not just a domestic epidemic. It has gripped
the globe as well. European nations, namely Germany and France,
increasingly define themselves no longer as our allies, but more so
as “anti-Bush.” In Bush’s words, “You are either with us or against
us.” The U.S. has formed new alliances and hostilities depending on
the level of opposition to America a particular state displays.

Fanaticism across the world is seemingly at an all-time high.
From New York to Bali, almost no region of the world has escaped
suicide bombers or terrorist strikes in the last four years.

In the U.S. and abroad, people have abandoned pragmatism and
reason for ideology and emotion. People seem to be adopting a “My
Way or the Highway” attitude, not realizing all the shades of grey
that exist in between. Statements such as, “The World Trade
Organization is evil,” or, “America should use war against every
country that does not fall into line,” are heard much more now than
ever before. The neo-conservatives of the right cling to their
ideology as much as the angry left does, but both sides swear the
other side is insane. Passion has defeated reason.

The dangers of this type of thinking are grave indeed. The
impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian situation delineates the point.
More adverse effects are in store for the world if this trend
continues. Polarization has begun to undermine decades-old
alliances which have maintained order in the world for over 50
years.

More wars and instability will definitely occur in various
regions of the world, as tends to be the case when reason,
pragmatism and a willingness to negotiate are abandoned for emotion
and passion. Should too many buttons be pushed in India and
Pakistan over Kashmir, a fifth war since India’s independence would
break out between them. Should North Korea rattle the saber too
many more times near the Demilitarized Zone, a war would likely
break out there as well. It is far too dangerous to abandon reason
in this day and age.

Although it may make for colorful debates and draw attention to
important problems and issues in our society and world, it is
dangerous and ill advised to form any foreign policy or national
policy that adheres to any doctrine, either on the far left or far
right. Our government and country do not need any drastic changes
to either side. Fine tuning, to be sure, is always welcome and
needed, but the U.S. is not faced with any major problems requiring
an extreme change of course.

Rather, a logical and pragmatic approach to decision-making is a
far wiser method of conducting affairs which effect a deeply
divided country and world. Justifying legislation and foreign
policy based upon logic will garner much more support than
justifying it in the name of an ideology. The greatest nations in
history have never lost sight of this. States such as the U.S.,
Britain and modern-day China have valued pragmatism over their
ideology, and have prospered as a result. Countries that ignored
logic for ideology, such as the U.S.S.R., have and will fail. It is
important to avoid that route.

The world has been well served when such level-headed
philosophies guide international relations. This occurred during
the 1990s under the centrist approach that Clinton and Blair took.
Arguably, the Clinton era was one of the more stable and prosperous
eras of our time as a result of his pragmatic approach. Reason, not
emotion and ideology, guided that presidency.

It has become increasingly important for voters to rein in their
leaders from continuing on an ideologically dominated path. That
means the Bushes, Deans and Chiracs of the world should be removed
from office. When voting in 2004, use your brain, not your
heart.

Bobak Roshan ([email protected]) is majoring in
international relations and political science.