Get to Common Ground: What Leon Trotsky Teaches Us about Ideological Division in the Face of Evil

A couple weeks ago, I was reading an article about Leon Trotsky (a figure about whom I wish I had known more, considering his role in Russian History, global affairs, and even American politics. What struck me was the author’s contention that Trotsky’s unwillingness to compromise with the enemy of an enemy actually aided the ultimate victory of Stalin (often seen as his arch-nemesis):

Trotsky’s slogan of the day was: “With Stalin against Bukharin — yes; with Bukharin against Stalin — never!”

Refusing to join the Right Opposition in a “united front” against Stalin, the Left Opposition instead enthusiastically welcomed Stalin’s removal of Bukharin and his supporters in the trade unions from leadership positions in spring 1929.

By that summer, the Right Opposition had been decapitated, and the Left Opposition had rallied to Stalin, its members offering their services to help build socialism. Apart from Trotsky and a few stragglers, the opposition had ceased to exist. The window of opportunity to stop Stalin had irrevocably shut.

The example is interesting historically, but it’s also a lesson in the importance of compromise in the face of great evil, or, at least, in the face of a common enemy. Ideological rigidity, whether in the form of throwing around the term RINO or mocking blue-dog Democrats, is unhelpful politically. If anything, it’s a softer, more polite form of Stalin’s purges. A party, a faction, any group really, is only as strong as its willingness to seek common ground, especially in the face of graver matters, an issue itself recently at stake at the Catholic Church’s 2015 Synod on the Family.

In this vein, the salience of political partnership across ideological lines goes beyond the simply domestic. In the wake of recent terror attacks, and with the ascendancy of a powerful terrorist power, ISIS, the time for squabbling is over. As parents do their best to present a united front to their children, so as not to confuse them or otherwise open themselves up to manipulation, so must any multifaceted or diverse organization seek univocality when possible.

Different situations clearly call for different responses when it comes to such action. There is no singular or easy way to unite a variety of diverse voices. Still, this reminder seems salient. In a world increasingly united by the internet, yet divided by any number of cultural, religious, and ethnic tensions, the attempt to come together and speak as one in the face of a common enemy or problem is as important as ever. How can America negotiate its foreign policy in a way that will both demonstrate its strength and appease those in the Middle East already distrustful of our past interventions? How can the GOP find a common voice even as the party seems poised to pull itself apart? How can Americans hold onto their nation’s identity as a welcoming land of freedom in the face of a virtually unprecedented European refugee crisis?

These questions do not have easy answers, but a reminder of the importance of ideological fluidity might offer us a lens through which to understand these undeniable, and at times seemingly irresolvable, problems.