The Catskill Chronicle

By Mort Malkin

Beginning of September

Safe from religion,                                                                                                                     from politics, folks speak of  trees                                                                                 starting to turn.

The position that anything that is overtly “political” is not suitable for conversation has spread to public forums such as libraries, churches, senior centers, and other community spaces.

One brave radio station airs locally produced interview programs where a guest sometimes approaches an issue that all listeners may not agree with, and so these programs must begin with a disclaimer that “this program does not necessarily represent the views of this station, its management, or its board of directors.” A local library issues a similar disclaimer when a regional peace group holds a lecture or film there each month. Another branch library refuses to hold a re-shelving event to transfer George Orwell’s “1984” from the fiction section to non-fiction for the day. Too controversial.

Many issues are deemed worthy of being “political” and, thus, mustn’t be discussed in polite company. “Political” is used synonymously with “controversial” and “contentious,” and the refusal of many folks to engage in such dangerous topics takes precedence over the First Amendment to the Constitution.

So, women’s equality and women’s rights to challenge inequality in the workplace are “political.”  Raising the minimum wage to a livable one is equally unspeakable. Those minimum wagers should know their place and be happy to have a job at all. It is also “political” to bring up anything about Wall Street, the runaway engine of our latest financial bubbles. Related is any suggestion about reinstating the Glass Steagall Act to keep the trillion dollar investment banks in line, or the need for a small transaction fee on the now totally unregulated, $1.2 quadrillion (not a misprint) derivatives market. Add to the above, the multimillion dollar salaries of the CEOs of the big banks and the mid-six figure bonuses of their stock brokers (salesmen). Mortgages and home foreclosures are a corollary to the bank’s devious practices. But, it is “political” to look back.

Education, though, must tighten its budget belt and learn to be creative with less funding. Head start programs, art and music lessons, and phys ed classes can wait; and larger class size might even provide superior preparation for the real world. End of discussion.

It used to be that the weather was an acceptable topic of conversation — both publicly and privately. That was before people became aware of global warming (heating) and chaotic climate change. One dares not talk of the enormous volumes of methane released from the melting permafrost of Siberia, Alaska, and the northern territories of Canada. Nor can one speak of reducing the use of coal, oil and gas, the sources of greenhouse gases. Anyway, conservation won’t matter much, but will interfere with the American Way of Life. The use of wind, sun, and tides can contribute only a little to our energy needs, and so we must drill for oil & gas and remove a few mountain tops for coal. Especially forbidden is any talk of the release of methane during the process of fracking, making the greenhouse effect of using gas for energy (from mining to using) as bad as using coal.

Anyone can see that every one of the topics mentioned is contentious, and so all are properly labeled “political” and unsuitable for polite company. Recently, another candidate has emerged to join the illustrious list: Peace.

Peace, as a disputative topic is actually not so recent. In 1967 and again in 1996, a small book entitled Report From Iron Mountain told of a top secret task force that issued a top secret report that concluded that world peace was dangerous and that “war provides the only dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies, that it is indispensable for the control of social dissidence …” For almost thirty years peace became controversial, but when the book turned out to be satire, a work of imaginative fiction, we thought peace would again become a topic that everyone could agree on and certify for conversation.

Now in 2013, peace has once more become “political.” When the White House (the president and Secretary of State) are joined by leading figures of the loyal opposition to say we must bomb some far off dictator (who was duly elected in his country’s last election), is it too controversial to ask for diplomacy under UN aegis to reach an agreement, end the conflict, and destroy any chemical weapons? Well Russia proposed just that, and miraculously it is working.

Here in the Delaware Valley, the Peace Academy at Liberty continues its work to encourage discussion among the populace re: the difficult task of waging peace and abolishing war. The Peace Academy does not become involved in partisan political strategies and tactics or endorse any political candidates, but opens discussions and presents research that mankind is essentially a cooperative species and that perpetual peace is entirely possible in our lifetimes. Yet, the response of many individuals and organizations, both public and private, has been that peace is too “political,” or “controversial,” or challenging. Even a couple of churches and a public forum have joined the “too controversial” side of the aisle.

War does not seem to be so. We wave the flag, support the troops by placing bumper stickers on our cars, and insist that Americans are exceptional (and not subject to restraint). Soon we will have to deal with a time of year when we celebrate the birthday of the (radical) Prince of Peace. We will wish for peace on earth and good will toward all mankind. It seems a good time to take peace off the “political” table.