The election season has finally, mercifully come to a end. Whether “your” candidate won or lost, we all share the same circumstances—namely, a divided and polarized nation.
If you thought that the inflammatory rhetoric, outlandish comments and its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it proclamations would come to a close with the conclusion of the election cycle, a cursory review of Facebook or Twitter comments would dash such hopes.
One could posit many factors contributing to the current climate, but ultimately the reasons are less important than our individual and collective response.
In his concession speech, Mitt Romney offered a positive step in the right direction by quickly and decisively moving past this year’s contentious election campaign.
Having thanked his supporters, Romney congratulated the president, his family and supporters, wished them well and stated that he would pray for the President to be successful in guiding the nation.
Near the conclusion of his speech, Romney again emphasized the need to move beyond the polarized incivility that seems to increase every election year.
“At times like these,” he stated, “we can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people’s work. And we citizens also have to rise to the occasion.”
In his acceptance speech, President Obama joined Romney in seeking to move toward a more civil conversation about the perpetual competing visions regarding how to lead the nation.
“We may have battled fiercely,” the President proclaimed, “but it’s only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future. From George to Lenore to their son Mitt, the Romney family has chosen to give back to America through public service and that is the legacy that we honor and applaud tonight. In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.”
Differences and divides still exist, of course, as they always, inevitably will. There has never been and will never be a time in this nation’s history when there is not disagreement and debate regarding how and in what direction the nation should be led.
This means that a more positive way forward is not a matter of agreement but engagement. In other words, civility will not be the result of a fusion or amalgamation of Democratic and Republican principles resulting in a tertium quid that conjoins the parties and unifies the nation.
Nor is this a goal to be desired. As I previously wrote, informed, passionate debate enables our political system to be effective.
What is needed is dialogue between competing ideas and ideologies that is informed and civil. These two elements are inextricable, since civility most often results from an educated populous since informed persons are inherently less fearful.
Thus, fear, like prejudice, derives its power from ignorance. We fear that which we do not know or understand.
It is easy to demonize someone or something from a distance. It is difficult to see your opponent as a specter when you converse with them and begin to understand the motivation and logic informing their perspectives.
This does not mean that you will come to agree with those with whom you presently disagree. Nor does it mean that you will never become upset or angry about the political perspectives of those with whom you converse.
Differences and divides, both great and small, will and should remain, because dialogue will not and should not result in shared opinions on each and every issue. Thus, passionate debate will and should remain as a key component in our political process.
The goal is not to compromise one’s perspective “so we can all just get along.” Rather, the goal is information that leads to understanding that leads to civility based on shared respect for another as people of value and worth even when we profoundly disagree.
On Morning Joe the day after the election, Joe Scarborough summarized the goal of civil dialogue well: “People confuse civility with compromise. You and I can disagree; in fact, we can be on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. We can still be polite to each other and talk it out. I respect you for what you believe and you respect me for what I believe. That’s not being a sell out, that’s actually being constructive and putting the United States of America’s best interests ahead of your own political party’s best interests.”
Thankfully, both presidential candidates have voiced their desire to set aside the polarized and destructive approach to politics and find a way to work together for the common good.
Thankfully, nationally recognized and respected political commentators like Joe Scarborough have voiced their desire to do the same.
These are steps in the right direction, but both they and “we the people” must now walk the walk. We all—politicians, pundits and populace—must find a way to be civil with one another, especially when we profoundly disagree.
The way toward a more civil society is simple, but profoundly difficult.
We must be willing to cease using inflammatory rhetoric aimed to incite and upset, and choose to sit down with those of opposing opinions and perspectives and do the hard work of seeking to understand.
Divides will, and should, remain. In fact, some ideological divides may seem greater with greater understanding, while others may seem lesser.
Whatever the case may be, we can move toward more civil society (even in the political realm) if we are willing to make the difficult, but profoundly important effort of seeking to understand those whose perspectives are different than our own.