State of the Union

At my dinner table this Thanksgiving, there were three conventional Democrats, three people too far left to call themselves Democrats and one socially conservative Republican. Even though the Republican was outnumbered 6-1, the lefties felt uncomfortable when the topic of abortion came up in conversation, and the righty felt attacked. No inflammatory words were exchanged; rather, our Thanksgiving discomfort was caused by all parties’ apprehension and fear of the opposing political abyss.\nThis is not an unusual situation. It is the state of the union.\nWe often hear politicians, normally Democrats, heralding the idea that our country is divided politically and consequently we need a president who will unite us all. We hear that our country is divvied up into red states and blue states, that our differences only grow in this age of partisan bickering, that as long as we cling to labels (Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative) we will never achieve understanding and remain in a political standstill, etc, etc. \nThe Democrats have said and keep saying that we need to overcome our differences and work together.\nBut bipartisan cooperation on the level of national politics rarely works. It can effectively happen only if there is some middle ground in an argument, when often there is not. Take the abortion debate, for example: The two ideological camps base their argumentation on different premises. Pro-lifers oppose abortion because they believe in fetus rights, and pro-choicers support legal abortion because they believe in women’s rights. \nThus argumentation has its limits.\nFurthermore, bipartisan cooperation is normally invoked by the group with less power, or by the group who most fears losing power, in an effort to bridge the distance between themselves and what they think voters want. \nPolitical strategy aside, the logic of cooperation and tolerance in American politics is contrary to the logic of power and even the logic of democracy. Democracy is not based on consensus; it is a dictatorship of the majority. And once the majority speaks, the elected power can (theoretically, within reason) do whatever they want. \nGranted, I’m simplifying some things here. But I’m trying to illustrate that bipartisanship is contrary not only to reason, but also to our own governing system.\nIndeed, why tolerate views if we totally and fundamentally disagree with them? Why should we cooperate with those who believe something completely contrary to our own ideas? \nSo this brings us back to my Thanksgiving dinner. \nIt’s true – our country is divided. I find that political affiliations get in the way of friendships and relationships with family members. Therefore, the only time I will opt for tolerance and cooperation is on the personal level. \nThe national political stage is the place for ideologies to battle and win or lose – not to compromise and find middle ground. The reason political parties exist is to provide different options for how to run a country.\nBut when it comes to Thanksgiving dinner conversation, I eat my own words. I try to tolerate and even understand my conservative relative’s ideas. When something you disagree with is staring you in the face, you’ve got no other option.