Meanwhile, at the Battle of "Contributing Factors"

I previously asked questions about whether or not we can define the current political divide in the United States as a cold civil war. In the mean time, ongoing debate here on Contributing Factor has helped answer, at least in part, some of my questions.

The posts and comments have presented this answer in the form of an idea that we seem to repeat frequently: “Then we are at an impasse,” or “Then we disagree.” As I understand such a comment, once we utter it, we create a barrier through which we can achieve no compromise.

From my understanding, compromise is the fundamental objective of diplomacy. When sides cannot compromise, then diplomacy has failed. If the issues at stake require action by one side or another if they do not achieve compromise, then in my view, the sides have reached some state of conflict beyond that which required diplomacy to begin with.

In a cold civil war, the battlefield is politics and the goal is the ownership of the means by which one side can enforce their ideals on another. This state of affairs differs from normal politics in that the ideals in question are ones the other side is fundamentally, even morally, opposed to and must continue to resist even after those ideals become law and are enforced.

If this definition holds true, then I believe that we find ourselves in the midst of a cold civil war in the United States. Even among the posters and commenters on this site, the lines seem to be clearly drawn beyond which no negotiation can take place. This is not an indictment of either side, but rather an acknowledgement that further changes in views by either side threatens to compromise their fundamentals.

Of course, the definition I present here may still be flawed, but it is my operating hypothesis. What remains for me to define is how such a war is fought and, more importantly, how it is ended.

Free Tibet?

So... off the elections for a bit to let everyone get their thoughts together and on to a new and potentially divisive topic.

Today the Olympic torch had to be extinguished - or at least turned down so far you couldn't see the flame - in order to put it on a bus because it became impossible to get it through Paris for all the protests. Athens, London... chaos. Paris... third verse, same as the first.

On the one hand, no one's been killed or injured really as far as I can tell. It's much in the news and NPR reports that the IOC has been mentioning that if this doesn't stop, they'll abandon the torch relay altogether. On the other hand this is largely peaceful resistance, albeit rather noisy and chaotic peaceful resistance. This isn't the WTO and the 'Battle in Seattle', at least not yet. On yet a third hand we now know that Parisian police wear roller blades while doing crowd control duty. (!?!)

Now it's our turn... so how do you think we're going to handle it? Do you forsee a downward spiral debacle ala the aforementioned WTO riots in my beloved city not all that long ago, where peaceful protest was overcome by radicals looking for an excuse to break windows and burn things? Do you think any of this is doing any good at all?

The torch reaches our shores soon in San Francisco. This morning, during rush hour three climbers scaled the bridge to hang a sign from the cables of the Golden Gate Bridge.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/07/MN6L101A0U.DTL&tsp=1

I know a lot of people in San Fran, early on I thought there were frankly alarmingly good odds that I know one of those three, or their crew. I don't recognize any of the names, but I'd bet that I at least know someone who does. (Somehow my separation never seems to reach six degrees, more like two. But I digress...)

It was certainly a bold feat but, I fear, ultimately pointless.

While I see the value of getting your message out when it's being stifled ala Dr. King, I'm not really convinced that's the case here. I can't turn on the radio or the computer without seeing stories about Tibet. It's a tragedy, no doubt. So it goes back to the simple fact that I've never been convinced that you can create a positive impression of your message by creating a negative impression on the people viewing your message. I am intrigued by the fact that NPR reports that they're thinking of calling off the rest of the torch relay if this keeps up.

And what will that prove except to prove that if you act badly enough you can create a two-day news furor that will not equal the value of the coverage that would have been had you been less anarchic with your attempts to get your message across. And the coverage will eventually sour... because that is the way of things. The world has been swayed by the serenity of the Dalai Lama in the face of relentless aggression and misinformation coming out of the PROC. If Tibet just becomes yet another hotbed of unrest... what then?

Positive image from negative actions? It strikes me as singularly un-Buddhist...