Divisiveness is Not Always Bad

People today seem to think divisiveness is always bad. Some oppose making English the official language of the United States of America because they feel it would be divisive. Did these same people oppose the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s because they feared it would be divisive? Have they not heard of the "divide and conquer" strategy?

The civil rights movement was extremely divisive initially but eventually resulted in more unity than existed before the movement. I believe that encouraging immigrants to learn English would result in less divisiveness in the long term, and improve the ability of the immigrants to thrive in this country.

Our system of government pretty much guarantees that any action taken by Congress is going to be divisive, at least in the short term. Some will like it and some won't. It will help some and hurt others. The government itself is divided by design. You won't total unity? Move to Zimbabwe.

That some action will be divisive is not a valid argument for or against the action. It's certainly not a sufficient argument against it. A proposed action should be judged on its expected final results more than its potential inconveniences during implementation.

Comments

Make a comment: