How To Address Political Division In America
How do we address division without resorting to the same platitudes we always use? The only way to do that is to get into the details of what we are divided about. We must also lay our cards on the table outside of the electoral discussion. This is because electoral politics incentivizes exploiting disagreement rather than solving it.
To get to a place of less division and more unity, people from different sides of the political spectrum should put forward what they want out of a President or politician in general who comes from a political party who opposes their views. We need to create a system where we do not feel existential threat if the other side wins.
What do people want the politician of the opposing party to do to make them feel included and content with their leadership to the extent that they can? What do people want the politician to do, knowing that as a function of politics and government, the politician will have goals and ideology that sometimes conflicts with their own?
People on the right and people on the left must accept that sometimes their ideology will be out of power. Vigorous disagreement and challenging of the other party/ideology is ok and is part of a democracy. But what parameters should we have as a guideline for how we should act toward someone with a differing view, and what do politicians of different ideologies need to do to have some level of trust and legitimacy with people who disagree with them?
When can we have an honest conversation and not talk past and straw man the other side? When we have honest, good faith conversations and represent the other side as they are rather than their caricature. Straw manning allows each side to highlight the other’s extreme and not characterize them in a fair way, which only increases division.
Once we start having an honest national conversation where neither side is misrepresented, maybe we can heal some of the divide in the country. It doesn’t mean that after coming to some sort of agreement on a baseline for how we should treat our opposition and what we expect from each other at a minimum, that we don’t in the future have very strong disagreements and conflict.
It means that despite even fundamental disagreement, we know that the other side believes in the other’s legitimacy. It means that we believe that the other side truly loves the country. More importantly, it means we have a sense of bond and connection that we all share as Americans even while having vigorous debate and disagreement.
This connection will allow us to have the greatest of debates on the widest array of policy while still feeling a sense of unity. We will still have something that brings us together. It will give us calm when our side loses an election. We will have a feeling that even when we aren’t in power, we can live in a country, have a discourse and relations with the opposing viewpoint that makes us feel confident that whoever is in power hears and connects with all Americans.
I do not want this article to be viewed as the usual trite platitudes. There are real divisions in our country that cannot be ignored. Divisions on the very manner of how we live as a society. And I don’t think both sides are equally to blame. One side, the left leaning side, has much more power and suppresses the right leaning side.
The left, which holds almost all institutional power, is going to have to stop mischaracterizing the right and suppressing conservative perspectives. When one side feels like they are constantly lied about and their views are suppressed, they will naturally become a bit more extreme.
The suppression of conservatives doesn’t make them ipso facto in the right. But this suppression and institutionalization of leftist values must me addressed if we are to get to any sort of meaningful reconciliation. If and when we can get to it, we can get into the nuances of issues. We can see where the other side has a point. And from there we can see the other side in a more human way and feel less fear or anger at the thought of losing power to them.
Discussing the complex issues of race, class, and oppression cannot be a one way street. The fact that there needs to be improvement does not mean that everything the side pushing for improvement suggests is correct. There must be a bay and forth. Once there is, both sides will feel like they are being heard. Consequently, both sides will be willing to work with the other.
But even doing this might not be enough. There are some issues where there might not be a middle ground. Some topics where it is not possible for certain people to respect the other side’s opinion on. But unless we start having real conversations, we won’t have a chance at reconciliation. Let’s try to give ourselves a chance.