For the Common Good

ballotSince Election Day I have wanted to write a post which addresses the social climate of the country, but was not sure how to approach the topic.  I wanted my post to be constructive, not destructive or divisive.  Every time I started to write, I felt like my personal frustration with the current social climate and its accompanying rhetoric got in the way of what I was trying to communicate.  I wanted to add positively to the discourse without resorting to name calling and ugliness.  The result was a virtual trashcan full of wadded up pieces of virtual paper.  Part of the impediment was my own disappointment in the outcome of the election and my need to work through those feelings, a process akin to grieving.  (Just call me Snowflake, even though I’m not a Millennial.)  Then one day I heard a segment of a discussion between Van Jones and  Bishop T. D. Jakes in which they were discussion disagreement in this country and I understood what my approach would be.

In this segment Mr. Jones speaks about the importance of disagreement in a democracy.  He gives an example of two people with opposing views on a problem coming together to craft an approach to solving the problem.  He says that through constructive disagreement and compromise they quite possibly could arrive at solution better than the one either side may have crafted alone.  He also admits, sadly, that this process almost never happens in disagreementtoday’s social and political discourse.  Instead, most parties participate in destructive disagreement, where the main point of the conversation seems to be to tear down or obstruct the opposing side at all costs.  The result of this type of disagreement is gridlock and ill will toward fellow countryman.

Hearing Van Jones’ words brought me back to my original intent when creating this blog.  Crafting a solution to a problem as large as poverty and its symptoms, like food insecurity, can not be undertaken by just Democrats or Republicans.  Neither can the solution be borne solely by governments nor the private sector.  Any successful solution to a problem of this magnitude must come from collaborations between Republicans and Democrats, politicians and members of the private sector.  This blog was created in the spirit of that collaboration, as a place where people possessing all viewpoints could present their opinions, as long as they did so civilly and with respect to opposing viewpoints.  I welcome input from all voices at this table, because all voices are necessary in this democracy if it is to be successful.

 When I first moved to where I currently reside it was quite a shock to me.  Prior to this move I had spent the previous decade living in one of the most homogeneously liberal areas of the country.  Practically everyone I interacted with thought exactly like me.  I knew the area into which I was moving was not as liberal as the one I was leaving, but I was not quite prepared for how different the two places would be.  On reporting this difference back to the friends I had left behind, many of them asked how I could tolerate living side by side with people who were so different than myself.  My response to them was that these new people I was meeting were not all that different than myself.  Sure our approaches to certain issues differed, which affected solutions we might wish to see enacted, but our wishes and desires for life were the same.  We all wanted to be happy, provide for our family, live in a safe neighborhood, send our kids to good schools.  I came to find that the things that were similar between us created stronger bonds than the things that separated us.  I would never have known of our similarities if we had not engaged in civil, respectful dialogue with each other.

neighborhoodSimilarly, shortly after moving to my current location, I started volunteering for my political party at the polls during election day.  My political party is handily outnumbered by the other party in my township.  That first election day a veteran volunteer from my party was introducing me to township members of my party as well as the other party.  The atmosphere among all was very convivial and I was a bit confused, having learned at that point to view the other party as the enemy.  This long serving political volunteer explained to me that we live in a small community and at the end of the day we are neighbors.  We rely on each other and must work together if we hope to accomplish anything for our community.  This was a revelatory statement to me, and while I have never stopped fighting for what I believe is the right path or agenda, I am also willing to listen to and engage in conversation with those who have differing viewpoints.

Those sage words have stuck with me and guide my approach to social and political discourse. They have allowed me to gain insight from trying to understand the viewpoint of someone with a differing opinion, whether that person lives in my community or another part of the country.  At the end of the day, we are all Americans and we must find a way to come together as neighbors and countrymen.  We must once again engage in the art of constructive disagreement and compromise, not to the detriment of our political party, but for the common good of our country.  The magnitude of the problems we currently face as a nation is too great to do otherwise, and the success of our democracy demands it.


One thought on “For the Common Good

  1. Wendy Rector December 8, 2016 / 7:23 PM

    Good article…. I totally agree with this post. I believe mediation/compromise and the necessary dialogue fosters the best ideas for problem solving. Stretching each of us to find ways to meet opposing needs is good. With this, enhanced respect for alternative thinking could also be an outcome.

    Optimistic/democratic thinking, however. For the last four years, our Congress has accomplished less than any other in the history of our country. Obstructionist thinking has been the determiner of each decision. “Compromise” has become a four letter word. The goal no longer is to find solutions or make better ideas, but is to stop one side from putting forth any constructive solutions. Make the other side look bad and just say “no!”.

    How does this change? Especially with the diatribe of late. Separating people/”pitting”people labeling people is the norm and leads to isolationism. Speeches full of hate prohibit dialogue. Reaching out to others..whether neighbor or those outside our comfort zone is a start. Speaking against hate speech/actions is another. Opposing government focus on homogenizing our country is a must.

    The issue of poverty and food insecurity seems a neutral topic. One in which it seems we all could readily embrace. Our rich country is capable of finding collaborative answers. We need to examine how best to do this. Can our country come together to discuss it? I hope. Wendy

    Sent from my iPad


    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s