Convergence
noun con·ver·gence \kən-ˈvər-jən(t)s\ the act of converging and especially moving toward union or uniformity.
Can diametrically opposite points of view exemplified in such fragmenting factions as political, religious, and behavioral orientations—those factions that disproportionately dominate public discourse—ultimately converge?
Notice, the question is not whether diverse factions of all kinds can coexist; there is adequate evidence both in the historical record and observable fact that individuals and civilizations who decide to “agree to disagree” can coexist and sometimes peacefully. The more pressing issue, and a deeply troubling one, is our national insistence that a convergence of widely disparate systems of rule is achievable, and indeed even desirable.
Embedded deep within the national psyche is the notion—irrefutable to the majority or perhaps just a vociferously vocal minority—that extreme points of view can ultimately be reconciled. The belief that varying factions will eventually converge into widely acceded-to universal concepts of rule is a hope based on myth. It is the persistent heedlessness of the West to assume that all systems of rule are of equal value and merit, and worthy to be considered— thus rejecting every historical and logical conclusion drawn from facts and bitter experience— an assumption we have increasingly come to accept.
Evidence the unceasing efforts of ongoing Middle East peace talks or our attempts to democratize nations— via invasion, abetting civil wars, or bottomless offers of monetary concessions—civilizations which haven’t the slightest inclination to embrace any aspect of Western influence such as the rule of law or morality, least of all ours. What seems to have never occurred to Western minds is the sheer incompatibility of repressive forms of government (“isms” of any kind) with democracy. Our detractors would argue that the Western system is not qualitatively better, and we act embarrassed, forgetting the fact that freedom, however flawed, is by any measure preferable to its absence.
Taking the point further, “we the people” have been known to conciliate to the extent of willingly subsuming our collective experience of freedom (changing sides “with the facility of partners at a dance,” in the words of Churchill) [1]to buddy up to despots. Has compromising basic and inviolate tenets of a republic, everything we believe in and hold to—constitutional freedoms, the rights of the individual, restriction of governmental controls to name a few— (by ignoring egregious human rights violations, for example) in order to gain political or territorial points, ever lead to a meeting of the minds with our opponents much less changed ones?
Evidence our World War II [2]collaboration with the heinous Soviet butcher, whose murderous rampages outstripped Hitler’s worst, and whose post war conquests belied every agreement among the Allies that presumably existed. Did our leaders not once consider how impossibly incompatible with democracy was totalitarian ideology and other one-party political systems of that ilk? We have learned nothing from the past in our enduring quest to maintain “good relations” with Russia, her current leader presently hard at work muddying Syria, annexing the Ukraine, colluding with Iraq and China and imprisoning and eliminating dissenters at home. “You’re Putin me on,” we quip, as indeed The KGB puppet master is doing in all cases and to everyone.
Our leaders have similarly sold their souls to Communist China, swapping allegiance to their own country for thirty pieces of yuan.
The ascendency of pro-China factions within our august bodies of government already enfeebled by special interests and internal dissensions has created a destabilization from which the USA will likely never recover. Our ship of state heads for the rocks while Xi is Jinping for joy.
All of the aforementioned diligent efforts expended in dialogue, guidelines, and negotiations—vis-à-vis détentes, amity treaties, human rights declarations, and “rules of war” —an absurdly oxymoronic phrase considering that in the heat of battle there is only one rule, to kill or be killed— seems to have as endgame nothing short of accommodation and appeasement at all costs. Accommodation to what and appeasement of whom are points rarely scrutinized. Historically, when has this tactic ever succeeded? The wholesale concession to differences in the guise of tolerance, that involves turning a blind eye to rationality and good sense and silencing or discrediting anyone who objects to repressive theories and practices, has ultimately lead to a full scale assault on American legitimacy.
What makes us quantitatively concede to these despicable powers? It seems we have decided that total cultural devolution is not only necessary but virtuous.
Can light converge with darkness? Turn on a light and instantly the darkness is extinguished. Why this categorical refusal then, to operate the switch?
[1] Churchill was referring to political affiliations, an ironic observation in view of Britain’s misalliance with Uncle Joe.
[2] See “Who Really Won WWII?”