If you are a Republican, the Democrat next door is not your enemy, nor vice versa. If you are pro-life and your neighbor down the street supports Planned Parenthood, he or she is not your enemy.
If you believe in enforcing gun laws, National Rifle Association members are not your enemy, nor are you theirs. And so on.
As an independent, I’ve known active supporters of one political party or another. No party has a monopoly on the best candidates. If you disagree, that’s your choice. I’m fine.
I’ve learned new skills interviewing people writing for the newspaper. I put them to use when I asked a Democrat why he supports that party with a firm ground rule: He could not attack the other parties and could only say positive things. In other words, tell me why you think your party’s agenda is the right one. Then I asked the same of a Republican.
Both said they were patriots who want only the best for our nation, fairness and justice for all, a solid economy, equality; good education, healthcare, roads and more. In short, their answers were near identical.
People have more in common than we realize, especially when we keep things positive. Where we appear to differ is how to approach a problem and how to solve it.
Why, then, have such discussions grown so nasty? Where did we lose the plot?
During the 1850s Lincoln-Douglas debates. the two men agreed on a time and place to meet and they publicized it. On the appointed day, each spoke for more than an hour on their key ideas and how they were the better of the two candidates.
There was no shouting at one another, no interruptions nor drama. Some may have found the discussions deadly dull.
Political debates remained fairly civilized for years. During Sam Rayburn’s 17 years as Speaker of the House, he would bring House and Senate members from both parties into his office to discuss issues, negotiate and compromise. So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came around.
What’s changed? Follow the money. The electronic news media, with its “social influencer” are among the culprits. Producers and talking heads on television also work hard to stir things up.
Some writers have a special dictionary of provocative words and phrases they can use to inflame those who follow them, yet still stay out of jail. Attention, good or bad, is money in the bank. Conversely, a reputation for being dull is the kiss of death.
In short, they are getting rich using us for fools. In the past, pro wrestling promoters insisted their actors be loud and outrageous as possible. Now their forum is public affairs. They want to upset us so we keep watching.
No matter who wins the elections do jour, their playbooks are already written. They’re not going to miss a beat.
“The whole aim of practical politics,” wrote acclaimed journalist L.L. Mencken 100 years ago, “is to keep the American people alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Their toxic behavior is still spreading across the country. As we march into the campaign season, notice how often a candidate will announce he or she is going to “fight” for you in Lansing or Washington. Fight? How about toning things down and promising to listen and work for you?
I am too old for their antics and drama. That’s why I’m turning off stations with attack politics and toxic prattle. That goes for the left, right and anyone in between.
I’m also declaring a moratorium on accessorizing my lawn with political signs. I know no one who’s been persuaded by lawn signs or bumper stickers. Besides, I hate having to mow and trim around them.
Third, I’ll ask anyone who wants to discuss issues to abide by the ground rules I mentioned earlier. If they agree. If they won’t, I’m not interested.
Long before I was invited to come to Good Shepherd Episcopal in Allegan, congregation members decided to keep party politics out of the church. They booted it out the door and across the street to the county courthouse parking lot.
Want to do that at your church? What’s stopping you?