Example of partisan rhetoric being dangerous

Not all partisan rhetoric is as safe as we'd like it to be. Sometimes, when someone has a very strong view on a subject or has a very determined agenda, he/she can say things that could have very dangerous results. One example of this kind of dangerous partisan rhetoric is the civil rights activist Malcolm X. He had the same basic agenda as, say, Martin Luther King Jr., but he went about it in a very different way. His speeches often include talks of civil unrest and violence, such as this quote: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery." It's obvious that he's just trying to tell people (mainly black people in the context it was said) to stand up for themselves and make people regret disrespecting them, but it's obvious how it could be argued that Malcolm X incited more violence than was necessary, and that his partisan rhetoric proved to be very dangerous. Now the question is, did Malcolm X help more than he hurt?

Problems involved in "Feel Good" Bipartisan Arguments

People talk non stop about having a "bipartisan" government, and how great it would be to have a system where everyone would decide what they think on an issue-by-issue basis, and there would be no political parties that would force people to go one way or another on every issue. If you think about it, it seems like a great idea at first, but most people who are pro-bipartisanship lack the ability to see the benefits of the side they oppose (but then again, how is that different from any other argument or conflict?).
The biggest problem with bipartisanship is a lack of support for issues that many people have in common. Take the issue of abortion for example - Not ALL Republicans are pro-life, and not ALL Democrats are pro-choice. However, the majority of Republicans are pro-life, and the Republican party provides an outstanding organizing point for pro-life persons. The Republican party can organize protests, rallies, etc., and know that it is making MOST of its people happy. It can also send people to elections that carry a political platform that will gel with people's beliefs as well as possible. You might not agree with every belief held by a Republican politician, but most Republicans can rest assured that the majority of their values will be taken care of. It is much harder to do this in a bipartisan system - political candidates' values would be all over the place, and it would be much harder to select a candidate that would effectively represent most of your political beliefs.

Follow Up Blog Entry

I'm very glad that I wrote this paper on the song Californication. I had always kinda of known what the Chili Peppers were saying in this song, but I never really thought about it and analyzed what they were truly saying. Turns out, they have a much more grim view of the California dream than I originally thought they did. The metaphors to Alderaan and the biblical Great Flood paint a very grim picture of the California Dream in the listener's head, and make them rethink what their opinions of the beautiful people and epic partying in California really are. I know I did - I used to think the California Dream was absolutely awesome (It's why I came out here in the first place). While I don't think the California Dream is actually going to crumble our society, my analysis of this song did make me realize that I need to make sure I keep my head on straight and that I don't get sucked up into it.