Nobody is entirely with the program. Even the most die-hard
liberal or conservative has an issue or two where he disagrees with the
platform. In fact, most of us are not to the extreme either way. And yet there
is a line that runs between all of us, deciding which side we’re on.
You can agree with someone on 49% of issues and be on the
opposite side of that line. You can disagree with someone on 49% of the issues
and be on the same side that hates everyone on that other side of the line.
Think about it: libertarians see things very differently
than the religious right does, but they’re both assigned a spot on the right
end of the spectrum. Your typical Hillary Clinton supporter sees things very
different from those who supported Bernie Sanders and yet the two are supposed
to come together in the end to defeat whoever is chosen on the other side of
the line that has been drawn. But the fact is the mainstream elements of both
parties more closely align with each other on significant issues that both
Libertarians and Greens oppose. When it comes to foreign intervention and
marijuana legalization, the far ends of the political spectrum are in agreement
against the middle.
The problem with choosing a side in politics is that you
find yourself compelled to defend it. And since no side is perfect, since you
yourself are unable to see all sides of an issue, you invariably end up
defending the indefensible. When you do that, you give propaganda opportunities
to your opponents, since they catch you saying what is simply not true. Also,
it justifies (in their eyes) them doing the same, and a perpetual war is begun,
all because of a line that has been drawn. All because we need to see an “us”
and a “them”, but whatever line we draw is arbitrary.
No liberal or conservative identifies entirely along the
party line. I know plenty of pro-union people who are also pro-gun. I know
plenty of pro-life people who dislike guns. There is no “them”, there is only
us. We are all different, and we all share a common humanity. We need to talk
it out, not shout. We need to not be afraid of crossing that line, because it
is merely illusory and arbitrary. We fight only because we love so deeply, not
because we hate. What hate we end up feeling is merely love that is twisted. We
must not stray from love, must not succumb to hate.
Let’s get back to percentages again. Many who vote on either
side consider themselves perhaps 60% one way, and 40% the other. That means
that a self-identifying liberal and a self-identifying conservative could
potentially agree on 80% of issues and yet despise the other because of the
label they choose to place upon themselves and others. Two self-identifying
conservatives who agree with 60% of the platform, given different reasons for
self-identifying conservative, could actually be in disagreement over 80% of
the issues. Even someone who is 75% liberal will have a conservative
counterpart somewhere who agrees with him on 50% or more of the issues.
But what’s even more concerning is that if the truth were to
be known, the typical liberal and the typical conservative agree on many issues
about which neither the Democratic nor Republican leadership care to discuss.
Who among us believes gerrymandering is good for our democracy, especially
since it leads to less competition for public offices? Because of
gerrymandering, we have candidates who often run unopposed. And yet the justification
for using it by one party is that the other one does it too.
Who amongst us believed it was a good idea to become
embroiled in Syria until our political and media elite started to bang the drum
for it? Or Libya, or Iraq, for that matter? And yet there are few who have been
elected to federal positions willing to speak out against our involvement
there.
How many of us thought it was a good idea to have private
groups sponsoring international corporations write trade agreements, the
details of which congressmen were not allowed to share with their constituents?
And yet this was a bipartisan no-brainer until Donald Trump was willing to pick
it up as an issue.
There are countless areas where agreement and discussion
could lead to improvements in our nation. There is not a thing that partisan
bickering will resolve. The bickering does serve a purpose, but not for the
populace. The constant juvenile mudslinging serves to distract the citizens
from the issues on which they agree and the monied interests do not. Unity of
the masses is the single greatest threat a small minority who wishes to control
a government can face. And so they back demagogues that do nothing but
passionately speak their half-truths. They own the media which is socially
liberal, economically conservative, and always pro-war. When they can’t prevent
the truth from leaking out then they cover it with filth and dump it into a tub
of lies. And because it is all so disgusting and we do not wish to crawl
through it all to discover the truth, we find it convenient to blame the other
side for all that is wrong with our country.
Our country will only have a government that is of the
people, for the people and by the people when we are able to set aside our
differences and not only work towards compromise but discover that what
everyone wants is really not all that different no matter what side of the rather
arbitrary line you are on. The alternative, the destructive combativeness we
now witness, cannot be good for our country, though it may benefit the very
few.
