Death of an Icon

Well, it appears that as of May 15th, Jerry Falwell is dead. An evangelist during his life, Jerry is perhaps most known for the political controversy which he was able to stir up around him. He was outspoken on a great many issues of the day, whichever day he happened to be speaking about. From segregation to abortion and gay rights, Israel to 9/11, he was not one to be shy about offering his views. With the backing of his ministry, in the name of the Lord, he attracted an audience of believers and detracters, and polarized the political debate. His death has already renewed debate about the positions he held in life; I will not belabor this place with more of the same. Others, with far more historically oriented minds than mine, will surely be able to do a better job of deciding what his legacy will be. So I will take a different niche; what legacy should we be taking from his ministry?

On pretty much every position he's taken, it's probably fair to say that Falwell was sitting at something of an extreme. Actually, forget "something of," the man was out there. So far out there, in fact, that there were really only two things that could possibly come of it: Exposure of issues and polarization. Both are in some sense necessary for any good political discourse, but neither is all that useful for actually bringing about a resolution. He is, in a way, the antithesis of a great many modern civil rights movements, embodying many of the same features that have led me to conclude that, although I'm all for civil rights, I'm very much against most civil rights movements.

What too many people in modern politics tend to forget is that polarization isn't the end of the battle. You can't have a conversation unless you manage to get people on opposing sides of the issue, but you can't reach a conclusion until you start finding some common ground on which to bring people back together. Our political structures and political people have gotten extremely good at the former, but virtually nobody of consequence is willing to take the effort to follow through on the latter. Of course, it's not as glamorous as splitting the public, and it usually won't make the people who do it famous within their lifetime. But then, as I read on a billboard on one my recent travels, "Life is short, eternety isn't." The trouble with Falwell, and those of his sort, is that they're so interested in life, that they end up forgetting abot eternety -- occasionally quite ironically.

These days, where we can probably see this best is in the battles across the several states to figure out how to define marriage. It should come as no surprise to anyone that Falwell didn't much like homosexuality; he's even gone so far as to blame the practice as being one of the contributing factors in 9/11. But leaving that aside for now, we can make some general observations about homosexual life -- marriage is a big deal, but civil unions won't quite do. On the flip side, however, people are far more willing to accept civil unions than marriage. But being forced to choose marriage or nothing, the trend has been very much a push toward nothingness, with many more states amending their constitutions to prevent any coupling than passing laws to provide even minimal rights of union. This is good politics, majority choice under the rule of law, people exercising the legislative or referential systems to codify their views, and to protect themselves from what they feel may be credible threats. But it's a loss for homosexual advocacy as they fail not only to win what they most desire, but actually lose ground in trying to get there. At a time when more people than ever are willing to accept at least limited equality, it should be stunning that society is actually progressing in the opposite direction.

It is, though, that all or nothing attitude that individuals like Falwell embody perfectly. One can hope, and I think we should, that with his passing, a new dialogue may develop. A dialogue built not on polarization, but unification. A conversation willing to accept the civil unions and forego marriage, at least in the near term, rather than losing everything all at once. For that kind of dialogue is a constructive one, not to mention completely necessary.

I'm sure that what we'll end up seeing are conservatives mourning his loss and liberals celebrating his demise. I hope we don't, for there's nothing to gain from it, but I'm sure we will. That, to be sure, is the world in which we live.