Unity

The Political Myth

All political ideas can be placed along an ideological spectrum with liberal ideas on the left and conservative ideas on the right. More liberal ideas fall closer to the extreme left, while more conservative ideas fall closer to the extreme right, and more moderate ideas on either side fall closer to the center.

Our conception of left vs. right politics actually has its roots in the feudalism of the Middle Ages, nearly a thousand years of absolute rule over the People by a French monarchy, and the French Revolution.

By 1789, France had built up a massive debt from all its wars and was in desperate need of cash to pay for them. As was the custom under feudalism, French lawmakers, with the approval of King Louis XVI, decided to raise taxes from the poor peasants and the middle class bourgeoise – but not from the church leadership or the wealthy nobility. (Does this sound a little familiar?) That action triggered the beginning of the French Revolution among the peasants and bourgeoise. In response, King Louis called for his lawmakers to reform the tax system. Lawmakers representing the wealthy aristocrats sat on the right (symbolizing the special seat of honor) and those representing the peasants and bourgeoise sat on the left (not quite so prestigious).

Fast forward 233 years in America, and whose interests do you think the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right represent? To paraphrase Andrew Carnegie, watch what they do, not what they say.

Political Division

If you’ve been alive in America for any of the past decade or so, you’ve probably noticed one undeniable and indisputable political fact – that the United States is extremely divided politically. But have you ever asked yourself why?

Of course, the origins of such division can be traced all the way back to the very beginnings of human existence. If any person has any opinion about anything that is different from any other person, they have a disagreement. Disagreement is simply an inevitable condition of the human experience.

Children on the playground often experience disagreements which may quickly escalate (or devolve) into a shouting match or even a physical altercation. In such a physical encounter and – without the intervention of an adult – the laws of the jungle apply and the stronger children usually get their own way.

But as we become more sophisticated children, we learn that we can enlist the support of others to do our bidding. For instance, if I can convince a friend to support my opinion, I can easily get my friend to talk trash about my adversary. And maybe I can even enlist the support of that friend to do nasty things like bully them or even beat them up. And without the intervention of an adult, the children with the stronger friends usually get their own way.

An even more sophisticated child may eventually turn to more devious methods. If I convince a group of my friends that “we are right” and “they are wrong,” then I have now introduced an “us” verses “them” mentality among the group. Sociologists refer to this mentality as a tribal mindset or tribalism. Once a tribal mindset has been achieved, the necessary conditions are now in place for me to manipulate my so-called friends into doing all kinds of evil things to my adversary for my own benefit. And without an adult intervention, the more callous and ruthless children usually get their own way.

As adults, of course, we pride ourselves as being so much smarter than children. We know that fighting on the playground is wrong, and any responsible adult would believe it is a moral imperative to intervene in a fight between two children. We also know that bullying on the playground is wrong, and any responsible adult would also believe it is a moral imperative to intervene.

But what about tribalism? What would we do about a tribal mindset on the playground? Would we try to intervene? Or would we be sucked into it ourselves? Would we try to figure out who is right and who is wrong and then take sides, or would we just stay out of it altogether? Would we fall into the trap of “bothsidesism” – also known in journalism as false balance – and give both sides equal weight? Would we just assume that both sides are equally right or equally wrong? Or would we passively accept it as just the way life is and walk away?

And even if we did decide to intervene, what would we do and how would we do it? Would we join one side in hopes of winning over the other side? Or would we try to find a compromise that is precisely in the middle of both sides?

By now, you may have noticed distinct parallels between the tribalism on the playground and the tribalism in our politics. Partisan politicians, just like devious children, use tribalism as a tool (and a weapon) to manipulate the People they are supposed to represent into doing all sorts of crazy things in order to keep themselves in power. We the People must now become the responsible adults.

Our Political Choice

So all of this begs the question, “What do we do about it? How do we change the tribal mindset of millions of Americans?”

First, we need to understand the basic factors that lead to tribalism. Political tribalism – just like social tribalism on a children’s playground – requires three necessary ingredients as outlined above:

1. There must be a disagreement that serves as the source of division.
2. There must be at least two groups of people that take different sides in a disagreement.
3. A moral imperative of “we are right” and “they are wrong” must be introduced to produce an “us” verses “them” tribal mindset.

Although there is no single silver bullet for this problem, it appears to me that we have two primary options:

OPTION #1:
Continue with Political Tribalism

We can continue to passively accept things the way they are and just let the chips fall where they may. There is a huge risk, however, that George Washington’s fear may come true:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

In other words, sooner or later, the swinging back and forth of the political pendulum of power between the two parties will ultimately produce an unprincipled leader who will take absolute power for him or herself and destroy the blessings of liberty and the very democracy that has given him or her that power in the first place. Put simply, we will lose what little democracy we have left. This could result from either an authoritarian, fascist takeover from the right or a communist takeover from the left.

OPTION #2:
Create Political Unity

The antidote to political tribalism is political unity. To create political unity, we must:

1. Articulate a common vision as a source of unity among the People.
2. Create a moral imperative that unites the People.
3. Vote only for candidates that unite the People.
4. Refuse to vote for political parties that divide the People.

We must also begin to shift our political point of view so that we may see politics from a completely new perspective. We must fundamentally reject the false dichotomy of left vs. right politics. It only exists in our minds. Political ideas and policies are all around us: left, right, up, down, north, south, east, west, upside down and inside out. They form a 360° sphere all around us.

Good government is simply the business of solving problems in a way that benefits and improves the lives of all the People. Every leader and every policy maker has the whole world of ideas at his or her disposal. But a truly great leader will create unity among the People by supporting policies based simply on their merits – not on where they happen to fall on any political spectrum.

Oh, by the way, there’s one more thing that creates unity: Can we all just stop judging each other? Judging is way above the pay grade of all of us.