Unity as a value is not dangerous, politicizing values is - opinion

In a recent The Jerusalem Post opinion piece “Unity can be dangerous,” Nadav Tamir outlines his perspective, wherein “calls for unity [are] in fact dangerous, and to a large extent manipulative because they seek to undermine the pluralism on which democratic societies are founded.”

Mr. Tamir continues to suggest that such calls for unity – while sweet to the gullible at face value – pose an inherent threat to civil freedoms, social integrity, and the necessary diverse opinions that constitute healthy democracies and pluralistic discourse. Such calls, according to the author, “promote the unity of opinion, or rather uniformity [...], expect[ing] us to divest ourselves of substantively diverse opinions [...], and gather under the umbrella of ‘the national interest.’” 

I wholeheartedly join in the author’s unwavering stance for diversity of opinions, agreeing that the necessary freedoms to allow for their full realization must be inherent in our all-inclusive social structure and mindset. Alas, our agreement ends there, as I believe that the actual manipulation, as well as danger, lies with the author’s cynical appropriation of the term “unity” as a partisan political position. 

And lest I am quickly judged, or hailed, by certain readers whose own political stance either corresponds or differs from Mr. Tamir’s, allow me to clarify that the particular political opinion offered in the article is wholly irrelevant to the point I wish to make.

Unity is not dangerous: Politicizing values is

THE PROBLEM here lies neither with the Left nor the Right, but with the alarming reality wherein all sides try not only to politicize values but to appropriate them as partisan ideological currency. Such are indeed the marks of totalitarian regimes, as the author suggests. However, the value of “unity” in and of itself is not a danger. 

Rather, the entrenchment of “unity” within the scope of political discourse should alarm us – a myopic, demagogic, manipulative, and hazardous tendency. Not every call for unity immediately invites the stifling of certain social sectors, nor does its application necessarily hinder our freedoms. 

There is a fundamental difference between unity and uniformity when looked at from the perspective of values vs opinions. We must have unifying values which are vital to who we are (such as diversity, pluralism, mutual responsibility), as the necessary foundations upon which we flesh out our (ideological) differences and celebrate our (political) non-uniformity.

A solid example may be found in the American Declaration of Independence, which not only draws a clear line between unity in values and diversity in political opinions, but in fact, renders the former an absolute prerequisite for the latter: All men and women are created equal and such rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not based on political agreement, but are presented as “truths [which are] self evident [and] unalienable.” Moreover, the document clarifies that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...”

In other words, the Declaration of Independence establishes a foundational framework of ethical unity, rallying around core values whose authority is absolute and may never fall prey to political subjugation or partisan interests. 

Contrary to Mr. Tamir’s overly simplistic claim that “unity is a paralyzing demand,” I maintain that on the level suggested here, it is indeed a moral imperative. 

Borrowing from my colleague Prof. Gil Troy, “unity” is the call for humans to draw a clear boundary between “right vs wrong,” and not let it fall into the muddy waters of “Right vs Left.” Following Mr. Tamir’s line of thought would suggest that the introduction of such terms as “self-evident and unalienable truths” into social discourse reeks of totalitarianism. Absurd.

Israel remains a free society despite the heaps of political and social issues still undeniably awaiting on our path. As I call for unity among us (and I do), I am positively overwhelmed by such unifying values that have brought us together, especially in recent months – commitment to our country, mutual responsibility, reciprocal and active assistance, etc.

I find no correlation whatsoever between such values and political affinities as I find myself sharing these values with scores whose ideology or political stand might not necessarily meet my own.

Quite honestly, suggesting that such calls for unity applaud conformity with any political doctrine is not only a patronizing insult to our intelligence but the application of a narrow and binary mode of thinking that aims to push us into choosing a political or ideological camp by utterly canceling its so-called “opposite” – a frequent tendency in contemporary Western discourse, which I will never accept. 

I lean towards the Left on certain issues and towards the Right on others, but none of these sentiments affect my deep respect for Mr. Tamir’s sincerity of voice, depth of conviction, or standing as a fellow citizen. 

Let us be very cautious when facing political discourse that aims to hijack and appropriate our most venerated values as human beings: It’s a slippery slope and a double-edged sword, no matter where you may or may not stand politically.

The writer serves as the international vice president of educational strategy for Birthright Israel.