Last week, I asked my luncheon club companions that
question. To a man, the sixteen all said
yes, to one degree or another. Most of
the responses described troubling effects; self-conscious constraint, avoidance
of contact or subjects, guardedness in conversation. A couple found positives in greater depth of
communications and sharing of concerns.
After addressing the retirement community of which I am a
Trustee, I got similar feedback: the heated political polarization is on the
whole straining the sense of community, its commitment to being a gracious
space in which assertive listening is to be practiced and the stranger is to be
welcomed.
What’s is political polarization? Fundamentally, it’s one
person judging another as “wrong”. Is
that what we are becoming – a nation of judgmental prigs certain that our
views, values and understanding are superior to those of others?
The Founding Fathers warned us of the poisons of “faction”
yet it took only eight years to morph into factional parties. Apparently clan, faction, party, sect – call
it what you will -- are hard-wired into us sapiens. But can’t we act in spite of? Do we really need inferiors to look down
upon; do whites really need people of color over which to feel superior; or
Pennsylvanians, their New Jersey neighbors to look down upon; or Christians,
their Jews or Muslims; or Democrats their Republicans and Republicans their
Democrats? Can’t we act in spite of? Yes – and we must.
Polarization justifies, indeed, celebrates winning. When we indulge our certainty of superiority,
when we judge the other wrong, when we resist empathizing with their views and
concerns, we may win but in doing so, widen the gulf of misunderstanding and
harden the others’ rationale of rejection and desire for revenge.
Our President (with whom I disagree on most everything) said
last night that we can solve problems and improve our commonwealth only by
finding common cause and coming together.
Couldn’t agree more – both in national and personal spheres. Mind-numbing resistance to the other must be
overcome by welcoming and listening for common concerns and values that can
bind us together. I’m not talking about mere
tolerance; I’m talking about active engagement.
On the national scene, leaders like Sanders and commentators like
Krugman and Blow are inciting resistance and outrage, citing the example of Tea
Party intransigence and McConnell’s treatment of Obama. There is much to be outraged about, many
policy proposals to resist, and McConnell is only a fool's role model. But mindless outrage and blind resistance
only prolong polarization. It may bring
a win, but winners and losers don’t count anymore; only collaborators can make progress
in our democracy.
And the same goes in the personal sphere: avoidance, being on guard, stereotyping and being judgmental are inhibitors of empathy and growth. Friends and acquaintances are
too precious to be sacrificed on a parochial political altar.
Odds makers in Las Vegas were putting the odds 4 to 1 that President Trump would resign in six months. The news today about the Russia connection and the recurring suggestions about tax returns showing oligarch funding will turn up the heat. I don't relish the idea of a Pence presidency, at least he lives in a more real world than the President.
ReplyDeleteNow as to your comment, I agree that polarization is negative if it keeps people from working to solve real problems, like the obstructionist posture of the past 8 years. However it can bring clarity to people who haven't been paying attention. That's a first step to getting engaged in the process and working to make positive change.