It is fairly accepted amongst the populous today that America is at one of its most divided points in history. We are not at a cusp of a Civil War, but tensions between the left and right are at a concerning high. How we got here is a discussion for a different time and changes depending on who you ask.
The focus of this piece is squarely on how we, as American citizens, can help bridge this divide and re-unite as a country once again. As individuals, we have the power to fix these divides without the need of government, through bettering our own actions in our personal lives.
Unity must start somewhere, and the only way to prevent a dissolution between the left and right is to rid ourselves of the detrimental notion that your political stances and voting choices completely define who you are as a person.
Now, let’s start off with a concession; generally speaking, one’s political affiliation usually aligns with how they fall morally, which is a discussion in and of itself. As a very broad example, those who feel that the good of the group supersedes the rights of the individual typically identify as liberal, while those who believe the reverse typically identify as conservative.
This reflects well in discussions about the First Amendment, with liberals arguing that some speech censorship is necessary to curb misinformation, while conservatives contend that individual rights of speech cannot be infringed upon.
There are exceptions to the concession above, of course, but it is a fair assumption to make on a general level while discussing politics.
However, it is still an immeasurable danger to insist that every single individual who votes or aligns a certain way are all identical in every way solely based on their political stances, and we must stop this mindset if we are to ever come together.
To malign every conservative who voted for Trump as a racist or a homophobe is just as terrible as to malign every liberal who voted for Biden as a baby-killer or a communist. This kind of name-calling and tribalism is cataclysmic to the fabric of our country.
To further this, no matter who someone votes for in an election or supports in general, it is never reasonable to suggest that that person is directly responsible for anything questionable or wrong that their candidate or their followers proceed to do or say, because that would not only be illogical, but vile, as well.
If this standard were indeed held, that would mean that every single Bernie Sanders supporter is in favor of James Hodgkinson’s nearly successful attempted murder of Steve Scalise and eight other congressional Republicans back in 2017, or that every Donald Trump supporter is directly responsible for the tragedy at Capitol Hill on Jan. 6.
Both of these standards are asinine, and anyone who does believe either of the two examples listed above must reconsider. Voters cannot possibly predict every single action their candidate and their followers do because that would be impossible, and trying to hold a voter responsible for said actions is despicable.
For the majority of the people in the US, the concept that your voting choice isn’t tied directly to your character is unquestionable. There are plenty of liberals who voted for Trump for reasons that are entirely unique to themselves, just the same as conservatives who voted for Biden. It is ridiculous and harmful to simply tie a voter to the candidate they voted for and call it a day, especially when someone doesn’t bother to understand why someone voted the way they did.
The core danger to everything mentioned above is the tribalistic nature of each of these fallacies. When we describe the other side in such broad terms, it solves nothing. Instead, we must do the one thing that so many people (ironically) seem to be losing in this new world of instant messaging and social media: talk.
Having reasonable and civilized conversations with those who we disagree with is the only way to intranational unity, but in this polarized climate, many people have no interest in getting to know those on the other side and this is the issue. To convince individuals to talk to one another, we must stop slandering opposite sides in progressively worse terms.
Many pessimists believe that unity between political lines is impossible, but I have first-hand experience that proves that assertion is incorrect. Recently, I met an individual who is the polar opposite of me politically. We disagree on nearly everything and find very little common ground.
However, we both align completely on one single issue: the First Amendment. Neither of us ever name-call or generalize the other, nor assert that either are responsible for mistakes made by their party and candidates of choice. We both can set aside our politics and just interact with one another as human beings despite the constant disagreements, and because of this, a strong friendship has formed in a scenario that would typically end with slander and vitriol. Why? Well, because this is what tolerance looks like.
If you want a “too long didn’t read” section of this piece, here it is: if you are suggesting that Americans with whom you disagree are morally bankrupt and wretched purely based on their politics, you need to rethink. That helps no one, and you are only contributing to the demise of civilized discussion. Stop associating voters with every action their candidate or their candidate’s followers commit. We are all humans and can all tolerate one another if we just talk! So please, get to know someone you disagree with. It will bring us one step closer to healing this divide.
Chris Barns is a second-year Physics major with a minor in Computer Science. CB943290@wcupa.edu