Let there be a discussion on diversity as it pertains to politics. Currently, there’s a story told about a line where people may have perspectives from the red right, the blue left, or sometimes the purplish middle. The recognition that there are more than these two main points of view — at the far ends of this line— is crucial if we as a society wish to progress together.
The labels “liberal” or “conservative” mean different things to different people. Just because one thinks themselves liberal doesn’t mean they are against the 2nd Amendment in any way. Just because one thinks themselves conservative doesn’t mean they are against universal background checks. Blanket statements about such groups are just that. When we make such statements, we are including our neighbors, friends, colleagues, family, and even ourselves, likely unjustly and inaccurately. Why is this done? What purpose is there to engender an “us vs. them” mentality? In politics, perhaps there are 51 reasons.
Fifty-one is the percentage of majority which parties or candidates attempt to obtain. Being efficient in obtaining a simple majority in congress or being elected is the goal. Certain common methods are used to reach such goals. For instance, in war – or general conflict — a strategy to pit members against each other is likely. Demonizing or dehumanizing opposition leads to this idea of Red vs. Blue. Donkey vs. Elephant. When done effectively, conflicts can be generated by only a few, albeit severe, disagreements. It takes far less energy and effort to mobilize supporters of your cause to action when there are divisive issues (or when issues are made to be divisive) in the forefront.
Humans can often be passionate mammals. Passion can be magnified on divisive issues easily which can make it a useful tool that can be used to divide and conquer. This is a sound strategy which temporarily unifies some small parts with the ultimate goal (or inevitable consequence?) of rendering the larger whole in two. Single-issue topics are thrown about every election year from each party with the hopes that enough voters will focus on those few subjects (and ignore others). As a calculated process to gain a slight majority, this is very effective.
The problem is most people are not properly represented by the limited dual party system. There may be more in common and agreement between a liberal and a conservative than two conservatives or two liberals depending on the topic in question. Neither party has an authority on truths (or lies), but both parties may present false dichotomies in order to split the idea “for” or “against” on issues. Yet, there can be “fors” with differing ideas as to how to go about moving forward and so vote against. There may be just as many “againsts” but for differing libertarian, environmental, academic, or religious reasons.
A final point to address is that we live in small communities. We know other individuals may have this candidate’s sign or that one, but this doesn’t mean we know the reasons behind the support. This doesn’t mean we are against each other on all things red or all things blue. This doesn’t mean we should assert what we don’t know about other individuals. Instead, let us inquire about what others mean. There are few one-size-fits-all answers. Our politics is far more than a two-dimensional line. There aren’t only-left answers or only-right answers. One could easily argue that there is no true line — of red on one end and blue on the other — but rather a multi-dimensional colorful form which flows and bends every which direction as it encompasses varying degrees and ideas.
Let us have discourse on matters we are passionate about in proper environments. Let us not merely talk at one another about our interests, for we cannot have a truly productive conversation if we do. Rather, let us also listen to what a member of an alternative perspective has to say. We may disagree from beginning to end, but at least we’ll understand the individual better.
When we work together we rise together. Cheers.
Leave a Reply