I just got finished watching 20/20's A Country Divided: Examining the State of Our Union. If you didn't get the opportunity to watch it, I would recommend clicking that link and reading what is presented.
The premise of the documentary is that we have become, or rather, have been becoming, a very polarized nation. From liberals to conservatives, from Massachusetts to Texas, from atheist to Christian, we are pulling apart at the seams at an alarmingly expanding rate.
Cross the hump...
Only since the 2004 election have I been blogging, becoming more involved with politics, more interested in reading blogs and alternative media, and paying more and more attention to what's going on both in this country, and in the world at large. I won't discuss my beliefs any more than I feel is relevant as I'm not trying to convince, or rather persuade anyone of my particular opinions with this specific post.
You are at your own mercy to decide what is right for you, what is comfortable, and what is acceptable.
We have become divided. Where or when exactly that happened, I do not know. According to Bill Bishop who is a reporter for the Austin-American Statesman newspaper in Texas, what is happening he has labeled "The Big Sort."
"The Big Sort" -- Surrounding Ourselves With Ourselves
Bill Bishop, a reporter for the Austin-American Statesman newspaper in Texas, conducted a three-year investigation into America's divide. Bishop and statistician Bob Cushing reached back over the last 14 presidential election cycles and counted Republican and Democratic votes in all 3,100 American counties.
The research yielded some startling information. "There's a steady trend line from '76 to 2004 of the country becoming, pulling apart, becoming more politically segregated. We began to see this pattern that we eventually end up calling "The Big Sort," said Bishop.
In the 28 years between 1976 and 2004, this country has been transforming from a nation of diversely opinionated people, from all walks of life who could either find consensus or to agree to disagree into a nation of two sides, cut and dry, and with no room for compromise.
I wasn't alive in 1976; it would still be two more years before I entered the picture and so I cannot attest personally to the last 30 years of societal ebb and flow. I will have to take the study cited above as proof, or rather evidence, of it's occurence, it's existence, and it's continuance. But I have been most certainly alive for the last 6 years and although I stated I haven't followed politics much until 2004, I've paid attention to many facets of my own life and what I see as I travel down it's ever-changing road.
As I sit here writing, I'm thinking to myself, "Ray, what do you want to say? What's the point you're trying to present that you feel might change a mind, or open up discussion, devoid of any preconceived notions or assumptions?"
Honestly, I don't quite know yet.
I do know, however, that it appears, to me anyway, that we have moved away from what we personally believe, to what we as specific groups believe. And what I guess I mean by this is not that we don't have our own personal set of values, or...a belief system that we fall back on as the ultimate justification for our opinions, actions, and decisions but rather, it appears we have given up individuality, that which makes us unique, in favor for the comfort, assurance, and safety of the like-minded group.
The echo chamber, if you will.
Although my grasp of American history is probably not what it used to be or even what it should be, I would bet my life against the idea that our founders, those who made the effort to break with the accepted and move to create a whole new nation, with the idea that everybody deserved and had a right to more and better opportunities, freedoms, and rights, didn't argue along the way on exactly how it should be achieved.
There is no one single right or wrong answer and based on that idea, I believe that is ultimately how our system of government was created, how it was intended to operate, and that which allows it to continue operating within the original hopes and dreams of those who gave it to us. The formation of our government specifically was subject to disagreement:
Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was a unicameral body in which each state held one vote. The ineffectiveness of the federal government under the Articles led Congress to summon a Constitutional Convention in 1787; all states except Rhode Island agreed to send delegates. The issue of how Congress was to be structured was one of the most divisive during the Convention. James Madison's Virginia Plan called for a bicameral Congress; the lower house would be elected directly by the people, and the upper house would be elected by the lower house. The plan drew the support of delegates from large states such as Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, as it called for representation based on population. The smaller states, however, favored the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states. Eventually, the Convention reached the Connecticut Compromise, or the Great Compromise, under which one house of Congress (the House of Representatives) would provide representation proportional to each state's population, whereas the other (the Senate) would provide equal representation. The Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of states (nine out of the 13) in 1788, but its full implementation was set for March 4, 1789. The House began work on April 1, 1789, when it achieved a quorum for the first time. During the first half of the nineteenth century, the House was frequently in conflict with the Senate over sectionally divisive issues, including slavery. The North was much more populous than the South, and therefore dominated the House of Representatives. However, the North held no such advantage in the Senate, where the equal representation of states prevailed. Sectional conflict was most pronounced over the issue of slavery. One example of a provision repeatedly supported by the House but blocked by the Senate was the Wilmot Proviso, which sought to ban slavery in the land gained during the Mexican-American War. Conflict over slavery and other issues persisted until the Civil War (1861-1865), which began soon after several southern states seceded from the Union. The war culminated in the South's defeat and in the abolition of slavery.
Of course, this doesn't represent the last 230 years of our nation's history since we declared independence on July 4th, 1776. It is but one of probably thousands of instances wherein Americans had to put aside their personal differences and reach a compromise that provided something for everyone. And this is why I believe that the most important word in the entire entry on the formation of our government was
compromise, which according to Wikipedia, is
defined as:
In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms --often involving variations from an original goal or desire. It is the central aspect of any process of negotiation wherin disagreement exists, but both parties consider an outcome of agreement to be more important than the potential gain of particular items. Within particular negotiations, agreements, and contracts (ie. "deals") "a compromise" (singular) refers to particular aspects and item pairs as representing deviations from previous objectives.
Without the ability to compromise, America might not have been birthed, grown, tended to, struggled, overcome and achieved upon itself of being the greatest, strongest, most powerful, most influential, and most respected nation the world has ever, and possibly will have ever seen.
Take a look at this picture and think about what you see.
What was it that you saw? Was it American military power marking a strategic victory? Is it symbolism for the defeat of a foreign enemy in the face of an unwavering America, determined to bitterly defend itself at all costs? Was it the spreading of a message of hope, freedom, democracy, an end to hate, or some other kind of answer for some unknown question that you simply feel inside of you, but know that looking at the photo makes you proud to be an American?
For some, any one of those questions might fit the bill. For me, it's all of those.
But it's also something more simple.
Six men worked together to raise that flag. And by looking at the picture, it doesn't look like they had a particularly easy time doing it. One guy is trying to anchor the flag at the bottom, while the other five, I assume, are working together to stand it up straight. Look at the guy on the end, he's practically reaching as far as he can, over the four men in front of him, to help achieve the goal.
They were working together.
Some might argue against my choice of images to make my point. I don't think the point I presented is in anyway disparaging those 6 men for what they are pictured as doing. Surely, someone will disagree and insinuate that I'm using the military to make an example out of some underlying political opinion of my own and that in doing so, I'm not paying respect to the military in one way or another. You are, after all, entitled to your own opinion. But I will respect that, even if I don't agree with you.
Yet somewhere, someone who reads this will no doubt label me a traitor or anti-military. And because I'm anti-military, I must be a liberal. And since I'm a liberal, I must be pro-choice. And since I'm pro-choice, I must be pro-gay. And since I'm pro-gay, I must be against religion. And since I'm against religion, I must be radical. And since I'm radical, I must be tearing at the moral fibers that bind this country together and as such, I'm harmful.
Therefore, I am the enemy. And I am not alone. But as the enemy, I and everyone else like me must be defeated at all costs as I am a threat to our nation, it's freedoms, it's rights, it's protections, it's way of being, it's foundation, and it's history.
But does having a difference of opinion honestly make me the enemy? Does my personal opinion have any real-life effect on your life or the decisions that you remain free to make for yourself?
It seems the biggest opinion on everybody's minds these days is why we have troops deployed in Iraq. For some, it's to spread freedom and democracy to an oppressed people who had been living under an iron fist. For others, it's because we need to root out terrorism where it breeds. And still for others, perhaps, there's a darker conspiracy lying beneath the surface that involves oil, lies, manipulation of intelligence, pre-conceived global domination plans in conjunction with an ultra-conservative and massive military industrial complex.
Who's right? Who's wrong? And am I really equal to anyone's own idea of who the enemy is, based on what their opinion for our presence in Iraq is?
Regardless of if we agree on our reasons for being there or not, I would hope that we could agree that we both want the troops out of there as soon as possible and for things to return to a semi-normal, yet peaceful state. I don't want anymore of our troops killed, contrary to some of the rhetoric that I've heard thrown at me and people like me.
I'm tired of arguing about WMD's. I'm tired of arguing about botched or cherry-picked intelligence. I'm tired of arguing about the liberals attempt to throw religion out of schools, or redefine the definition of marriage.
I'm also tired of arguing that conservatives want an American theocracy. I'm also tired of arguing that conservatives are against gays or migrants. I'm tired of arguing that conservatives simply are wrong and liberals simply are right just as much as I'm tired of hearing that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong.
When it comes to our differences, there simply is no one right or wrong answer on a host of issues that plague us all as Americans that manages to provide something for everyone.
In other words, we haven't even begun to try to lower our voices, calm ourselves down, come back to the table, sit down together, and really discuss first off what our differences are and where we're willing to negotiate.
So as we enter into this Fourth of July, 2006, the day that marks our own country's independence, let's remember the founders of our nation, those who also had steep partisan differences and their own ideas on what was right and what was wrong, and take notice of the fact that had they not been able to work out their own differences, we might be a completely different nation, without opportunity, without protection, and above all, without the right to agree to disagree yet still be able to find compromise.
God bless and Happy Fourth of July.