As Europe grapples with complex challenges, fear of political polarisation hangs in the air. We seem to be edging towards American style ‘us versus them’ polarisation. Europeans on all sides of the political spectrum want that to stop, but it is happening anyway. Where can we look for lessons on how to stay united even while we battle over competing interests and conflicting visions about what the Europe of the future should look like?
Perhaps we should look in a somewhat unlikely place: the USA; albeit not the USA of today, whose political discourse is characterised by coarse language, falsehoods and violence, but instead, the abolitionist movement of the nineteenth century. In a world blighted by slavery, brave, articulate voices like Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass spoke up against the norms of the day. But a lesser-known figure, Reverend John Rankin, delivered a masterclass in effecting compassionate political change.
A new biography of Rankin, Caleb Franz’s The Conductor: The Story of Rev. John Rankin, Abolitionism’s Essential Founding Father, shines a light on these lessons. The Conductor is an enthralling romp through Rankin’s extraordinary lifetime, charting his quest to rid the world of slavery. Thrilling in parts and profoundly moving in others, Rankin’s life story as told by Franz takes the reader by the hand through the adventure and the lessons it offers.
The most compelling and relevant part of Rev. Rankin’s story relates to his brother, Thomas Rankin. Thomas, to his brother’s dismay, purchased slaves. Rankin’s response to this situation – his own brother betraying the cause to which he had dedicated his life and, in his eyes, committing appalling acts against his fellow men by exploiting their lack of freedom – was legendary.
The reverend responded by writing a series of open letters addressed to Thomas and published in the Castigator newspaper. Unwittingly, he was laying the intellectual groundwork for the abolitionist movement and reaching a substantial new audience with his anti-slavery arguments. But the letters were addressed to his brother directly, and it is clear he kept him in the forefront of his mind when writing them, despite their wider relevance.
The reverend circumvented the risk of political polarisation by refusing to ‘other’ Thomas. He did not descend into an ‘us versus them’ mentality, seeing his brother as one of his enemies to be defeated. Instead, he clung onto his familial compassion and used it to drive forward his quest to undermine slavery in a way which did justice to the seriousness of the cause while still loving, not hating, his brother. Those letters went on to become the Letters on American Slavery, published in their own right and doing more than their fair share to advance abolitionism.
The lesson for contemporary Europe is profound. The Brussels bubble does a great many things wrong, many causing real-world harm, albeit none coming close to the tragedy caused worldwide by the slave trade. The temptation is there to view the Brussels blob, or the people or institutions within it, as the enemy to be defeated. But adopting that mentality will only set us back. Europe is a family.
It is legitimate and worthwhile to write criticisms of Brussels’ mistakes, as Rankin did of his brother’s decision to involve himself in the slave trade. But we must avoid descending into polarisation. Instead, we ought to speak and write as though we are trying to win over a beloved family member who has made a series of bad choices.
That doesn’t mean we don’t take the issues seriously. Rankin did not brush his brother’s deeds off lightly or find excuses for him, nor did he trivialise the subject matter by reacting the way he did. He treated slavery with the gravity it deserved, and so must we with Europe’s problems today. But we can do so with an attitude of compassion rather than resentment as Rankin did. For him, it was personal. His family was at stake. In political discourse, we should think the same way.
That means even when Brussels makes baffling, self-defeating choices which seem to undermine everybody’s interests and sometimes bring about tragic real-world consequences, we should not adopt an uncompromising tone of attack. Instead, we should be loving and constructive. We must draw attention to Brussels’ mistakes and call for urgent course corrections, by all means, but without an undertone of hostility.
We discuss European politics publicly and with such emotion because it matters; not because we want to see the European project fail, but because when Brussels succeeds at its job, the continent is a richer, freer and happier place. We would do well to remember that.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
