Submitted by Greg Alderete.
Pluralism, often praised as a strength of democracy, can be manipulated into a tool of division, serving the interests of those in power rather than the people. Throughout history, leaders who seek to maintain control have understood that the greatest threat to entrenched elites is a unified working class. To prevent collective action, they deepen divisions along racial, cultural, and ideological lines, ensuring that citizens fight one another rather than the corporate and political forces that exploit them.
In the Army, we understood the strategy well: never intervene in a civil war unless you can turn one side against the other. That is precisely what those in power have done. Rather than address the systemic failures of healthcare, education, and economic disparity, they fuel resentments, using immigration, race, and identity as distractions. While people debate symbols and slogans, billionaires secure tax cuts, corporations crush unions, and healthcare remains a privilege rather than a right.
This is the dark side of pluralism. When wielded cynically, it fragments solidarity and ensures that power remains in the hands of the few. By convincing working-class people that their real enemies are fellow citizens rather than the ruling class, those in power uphold the status quo while pretending to fight it. Until people recognize this divide-and-conquer strategy, the cycle will repeat, and those in power will continue to exploit the fractures they have so carefully deepened. True democracy demands unity, not manipulation disguised as pluralism.
You are absolutely correct and, unfortunately, we have some master manipulators in power right now. They are terrified of the people seeing them for who and what they really are so they keep throwing red herrings to make sure no one focuses on them. We will never defeat them unless we work together.
True and clearly stated. Democracy has lost its way in the USA, and it may be too late to restore the system of checks and balances before irreparable harm is done.
Well said, Greg. In 2019 we spent some time in Germany and visited a “Documentation Center” in Nuremberg, one of about a dozen in the country. Despite the somewhat ominous name, the purpose of the centers is to document and present the rise and fall of Nazism in Germany from about 1929 through 1945. Every school-aged child is required to visit one of these at least once during their education. It is scary how a lot of what happened in Germany during that period is happening in our country today.
Well said.
“Cynical pluralism” is what’s behind diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). That is coming to an end…finally. DEI is a regressive attempt to take us back to tribalism by destroying the social, moral and political institutions that allow us all as individuals to have the chance to succeed in a secure environment. Out Country was founded upon unity, equality and individualism (UEI). What makes us “Americans” is not our differences in race, ethnicity, origin, sex, or any other group we might be assigned to by others. Rather it is the common set of values and principles that we adopt and adhere to as a society.
You have bought into the bait served to distract from the real intent of Trump’s movement to control all and fatten his ego and family’s assets. It’s called a cult for a reason by the other half.
Not bait, just a rational look at reality. DEI was rejected in the last election:reality. DEI is all about group identification at the cost of individual freedom: identity politics is its most blatant form. Reality. This isn’t about Trump; it’s about what has made this Country great. Reality. The cult is the regressive, leftist belief system in the new religion of DEI: reality. DEI exhibits the same toxic attributes of fundamentalist Islam. Reality.
DEI was not universally rejected in the last election; its role remains debated. While some see it as identity politics over individual merit, others view it as a tool for fairness. America’s greatness stems from both individualism and collective progress—civil rights, economic mobility, and military sacrifice. Labeling DEI a “cult” or comparing it to fundamentalist Islam is extreme; one is a workplace and policy initiative, the other a religious doctrine. DEI, like any policy, has strengths and flaws, but reducing it to ideological warfare ignores the broader reality of systemic challenges and historical context.
I didn’t say “universally”, you did.
It was rejected with the election of President Trump and by some of his first EOs and the almost immediate compliance of universities and businesses across the Nation and around the world.
Apparently you don’t understand fundamentalist Islam, or the nuvo-religion of DEA. They both label those inside and outside as “apostates” or “infidels” (or fascist, threat to democracy, or even “extreme” etc.), demand 100% adherence to their dogma, refuse anyone to question that dogma, practice various forms of deception, attempt to destroy (literally/figuratively) any opponents, divide and conquer, violate laws, attempt to institute their own laws (sharia/sanctuary cities), group “rights” before individual rights, complain about mistreatment (marginalization), demand society accommodate them, attack the very institutions upon which our freedoms are based.
Want to go on? This is just a partial list.
When a political discussion revolves around one group seeking to divide by various means (sex, race, religion) and discusses a “historical” basis for how to keep “entrenched elites” fearful of an organized working class, I call it like I see it…a discussion of Marxism and Marxist ideology. There’s no room for pluralism in Marxist ideology.
I’d ask this question: Do you feel a part of the solution right now of the many ills facing our country? Are you a fan of unmitigated migrant and illicit drug flow across our borders? Are you a fan of the trillions of dollars being spent abroad contrary to the interests of most Americans? Those that facilitated this were seeking the destruction of this great nation.
If one feels like they are part of the solution, and that their individual actions can be seen turning a ship around that has wandered far off course, then this pluralistic experiment may, in fact, be working.
You’re raising some valid concerns about division, governance, and national priorities, but labeling all discussions of inequality as Marxist oversimplifies the issue. Recognizing historical injustices or questioning entrenched power structures doesn’t automatically mean advocating for Marxist ideology, which fundamentally rejects pluralism in favor of class struggle.
On the broader issues—border security, drug trafficking, and government spending—many Americans share frustrations, but solutions aren’t binary. Opposing “unmitigated” migration doesn’t mean supporting inhumane policies. Criticizing foreign spending doesn’t mean isolationism is the answer. The real question is how to address these challenges while maintaining the principles that made America strong: accountability, opportunity, and yes, pluralism.
If people believe their actions—whether through voting, activism, or governance—are steering the country back on course, then democracy is still functioning. The real danger isn’t debate over policy; it’s the erosion of trust in each other’s intentions and the belief that only one side is acting in good faith.
Term limits for ALL politicians
I would go even further to say term limits with a total of 12 years “public service” no matter how many different office you have held.
If politicians are limited so is their power and influence. Politics was never meant to be a life long career
I wonder where Mr. Arbeeny gets his blinders. The current drive to marginalize certain segments of our society is deplorable.
There is no “current drive to marginalize certain segments of our society”. Only a drive to ensure the merit, not race, ethicity, or any other qualifier is used, instead of merit, to judge the competence of individuals, vice groups, qualified for the position. Just image if DEI were applied to the NFL, MLB or NBA. Where’s the outrage there due to the lack of Asians in those sports?
You make an interesting point about the emphasis on merit and how the application of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles might appear inconsistent across different fields. Sports, particularly the NFL, MLB, and NBA, tend to operate as meritocracies where individual performance and skill are the primary determinants for success. However, DEI efforts in other sectors often aim to address historical and systemic barriers that have limited opportunities for certain groups, not necessarily to enforce proportional representation everywhere.
The disparity you highlight in sports could be explained by varying levels of cultural interest, access to resources, and societal expectations, which shape who pursues particular careers or activities. DEI in most contexts isn’t about demanding equal representation in all areas but rather ensuring that qualified individuals aren’t excluded or disadvantaged due to biases or systemic obstacles.
DEI is all about equal outcomes and most often achieves its stated objects by lowing standards. Case in point.
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI).
Just prior to the 2024 election Mr. Reykdal manipulated academic data for the entire state on the OSPI Report Card to make him and the State look better than they actually were.
Originally the metric of “Students Meeting State Standards” included only those students above average (50+ percentile) and students well above average (75+ percentile). OSPI secretly added “students below average” (25-49 percentile) to this group and “magically” students meeting state standards went up over night by about 50%!
That’s what DEI does in reality and its unfair to both groups of students. Successful students’ (merited) achievement is diluted and that of non-successful students (not merited) is artificially elevated…but not really…leaving them with actual lower merit and perhaps not even knowing it.
Merit is merit whether you’re shooting hoops or flying an airplane. Disparities between races, ethnicity, sex, etc. are not necessarily an indication of “biases or systemic obstacles”…fine DEI buzz words. Deceptive language is another fundamentalist Islamic tactic. Sometimes its just the difference in humans.
DEI & DEMOCRACY This letter/comment is offered in the spirit (TST goal) of: “interesting conversations among honest and respectful people,” and with reference to a letter “Pluralism,” by Greg Alderette, published 11 Feb 2025, followed by six comments: (https://thesubtimes.com/2025/02/10/letter-pluralism/). Outstanding among comments is John Arbeeny’s recurring one that precisely turns Greg Alderette’s “pluralism” point on its head to attack social and political argument supporting “DEI.” Labeled “cynical,” pluralism is bad, ergo any reference to diversity, equity and/or inclusion is bad. “Out damned spot!” Let us cleanse American political lexicon to untrouble Lady Macbeath and rattle the cage of its liberal tendency.
“Pluralism” is the idea that beyond tolerating our differences, we can and will find ways toward constructive political interaction to live in democracy. Interestingly, though central to Alderete’s letter and point, it contains no reference to diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI).
Current national argument about DEI predates the American Revolution and reveals in the amended United States Constitution. It remains a universal argument both defining and dividing opinion, culture, and kinship throughout history. At core, DEI issues, debate, policy and law are conversations seeking, resolving, avoiding, or denying the most common interests of humanity. As expressions of reservation, right and responsibility, whether in attitude or law, claims for or against DEI cut to the passionate heart of individual identity and belief in our conscious awareness of self and social circumstance.
All that gets variously institutionalized through traditions of lived experience in politics, religion and social organization (governance). American democracy requires that civil accord derive from common acknowledgement the individual (you and me), and respectful agreement about a factual governing foundation. Lexicon matters. Words become history seeking future expression.
Labels get applied, flags raised, boundaries defined, but the argument sustains, globally and locally. Whether CPSD or Gaza, where civil accord fails conflict divides. Whether result is war or an ideological food fight, another generation is often left to attempt comprehension. Understanding turns to narrative history, for which books are written, idolized, banned and burned. As libraries and empires are built on the possession of history consequence comes into view, and, in the fulness of time, possibly justice.
DEI attempts a seat for at the table for everyone. It is the antithesis of fragmentation, exclusion and “cynical” indifference.
Somewhere between “we shall govern” and “we shall be governed,” there emerge ideas of justice, liberty, rights and responsibilities. Seeking a moral foundation on principled liberty our “Founding Fathers” came up short. Notwithstanding civil war, reconstruction, Constitutional enlargement and “possessed” histories since, argument about franchise and entitlement has yet to securely bend the arc of justice to universal suffrage and opportunity. DEI, written into policy and law attempts a service of justice upon which democracy depends. Attacking DEI as some operative enemy of “merit” or sound governance is an exclusion distraction of against the idea of “pluralism.”
Pluralism is good, a strengthening timber in the American house. Pluralism embraces DEI. Box any person or group with a “DEI is bad label” and he/she/it is out of the game. Whom would you box? Throughout “possessed” histories millions have been labeled, categorized, dismissed and worse. By what virtue finds your light and hand to one condemned or stands for truth and right and justice? Martin Niemöller’s famous realization confessional cautions, “… and then they came for me.” There is little difference between his then and there, and our now and here moment for finding within ourselves character to stand for truth and right and justice, and for the civil accord to favor these attributes with dignity across the wider kinship of our human family.
With allegiance and the oath by Constitution we may pledge, that is the high moral plane of law, fair regard by which, in hope, hymn, labor, duty and sacrifice, we imagine and create an America for all. For all is Pluralism. For all means Diversity and Inclusion with positive Equity to benefit community.
ALL be well and have a good night.
PS: There are nearly a dozen branches of Islam and a fair number of Jewish, Christian, Buddhist and Hindu. Sikh and Jain are pretty defined, and Cao Dai and Bahai probably welcome all. Meanwhile Unitarians have been making trouble for a thousand years, and them Atheists just can’t leave science alone, while the Friends wonder why can’t we all just get along. In fact we can, with a touch of grace and a little effort, and we’d better be trying to figure out how.
Democracy’s not the only approach to governance. It is inherently fragile if not institutionally resilient and full of lumps regardless. But it offers a human experience with individual creative opportunity, freedom and dignity. Our republic is fractious and far from perfect. But it is a social governance conversation that requires respect by and from everyone involved with regard for its institutions and abiding mutual interest in its shared responsibilities to each other and to the natural planet we inhabit together.
We, and the free world (EU/ASEAN) are approaching a “mid-night hour” as China, with it’s approach to governance, tightens a constricting grip on planned domination of global resource, markets and opportunity. But that’s another conversation.