The Eve of Destruction?

Guest Opinion

Are we really on the “eve of destruction” as the mid-1960’s protest song claimed?

The popular folk song, performed by Barry McGuire, chronicled a number of difficult issues plaguing the world at that time. These included racism, civil rights, and perhaps most prominently, the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Whereas racism and the fight for equal rights continue to fuel conflict, we can be thankful that the threats to use nuclear weapons remain for the most part just that—threats. Hiding under our schoolroom desk in an effort to avoid the harmful effects of a blast was simply hopeful, if delusional thinking.

As you read this column, we have obviously not been nuked into smithereens—yet.

The possibility of such attacks still exists, yet the probability remains on the low side. Why? Because using nuclear weaponry is typically a last-ditch effort that many feel is both immoral and potentially suicidal.

So, because we are unlikely to have nuclear war anytime soon, does this mean that we are not on the eve of destruction? Not at all! I would argue that we are not just “on the eve,” but we are actually well underway in the process of destroying ourselves.

How is this happening? Surely you have heard the sayings such as “United we stand, divided we fall.” It may sound corny, yet there is more than a grain of truth to it. Abraham Lincoln, during a speech given in Springfield, Illinois, paraphrased a passage from Mark 3:25 when he said that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

We have become such a house—in increasing danger of a perilous fall. We are not on the eve of destruction but instead actively engaged much further down the road.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle appear much more interested in attacking each other than working together and attacking the problems facing our country. Is that what we elected them for? Playing the blame game may seem like the way to defeat your opponent and get elected, yet all it does is increase division and therefore hastens our destruction.

One of the earliest lessons a child learns is that they cannot always get what they want. (Reinforced by the song by The Rolling Stones.) Another is that other people have needs, often different from or in conflict with ours. These differences can be on the micro level, between two individuals, or on a macro level, between two groups of people, such as political parties.

What is the best way to minimize and resolve these conflicts? First, do your best to avoid, or at least limit, your assumptions about the other side’s potential arguments and positions. It’s simply too easy to fall into your prejudicial mindset, thinking we know everything about a person or group based on their history and affiliations. What do we really know about what that person or group believes and what they stand for?

At the most basic level, most people want to be heard and understood. We can often achieve this by simply repeating and rephrasing their argument. Once each side of the conflict is understood by each party, it is time to negotiate. Compromise is the ultimate goal, although sometimes difficult to achieve depending upon the ego involvement of each of the parties.

Most people want to be right, yet the truth of the matter is reflected in the saying that “half a loaf is better than no loaf at all.”

Finding the middle ground is often crucial in dealing with conflict and ending our continual path of destruction. Attacking each other only hastens our descent.

Greg Holmes lives and writes in Traverse City.

View On Our Website