A Great Divide

I have read and listened to a lot of discussions regarding our current political ‘divide’. We are told that political discourse is more divided and divisive than ever before. Now there is some question as to whether that is true. Certainly many historians seem to differ on the question.

But I think that there is something else going one that few political commentators seem to mention, something that explains our modern political division in a much more substantial way: our modern political differences are actually larger.

Lest I seem to have said nothing, let me quickly explain:

When previous generations had political differences, they were differences with a lot less difference. They might have agreed on A, B, C… and then differed as to whether D or E should come next. They were in large agreement about goals, for example, but differed in what means would best produce those goals. Or they disagreed on the goals, but agreed on a fairly small subset of acceptable means.

And they often agreed that the other person’s proposed solution was a valid possibility. If one person was proposing a steel bridge, and the other a concrete bridge, they were both agreeing that a bridge was needed, and the person proposing steel agreed that concrete *would work*… it just wasn’t as strong, or as pretty as steel. And the concrete person would admit that the steel bridge would carry the traffic needed, and that the price wasn’t outrageous… but it wouldn’t last as long, or it would be more vulnerable in earthquakes.

But that is not the position we find ourselves in today on many issues. We don’t merely differ on the means, while agreeing on the goals. We don’t agree that the other persons means would solve the goals, just not on the best manner. Nowadays, on many issues, we disagree root and branch, goals and means, and with huge differences.

Take ‘Gay marriage’. One side, the conservative traditional religious side, believes that it is wrong for two men to have sex. At all. Ever.

The other side, the post modern, progressive, intersectional anti-religious side, believes that it is wrong not to celebrate two men having sex! That merely stating that there might be some objection to the idea is deeply immoral, and that the law needs to be brought to bear on such horrible people until they relent.

It’s as if the one side believe that steel was sinful, and the other that concrete (not merely a concrete bridge, but the very idea of concrete) was a form of planetary rape.

Or take child murder (aka abortion). We have gone from a society that made it illegal, to a society where it was legalized by judicial fiat. We have gone from the promoters of child murder speaking of it being ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to ‘shouting out’ your abortion and making your murdered child into a bit of jewelry!

Or take gun control. We have gone from the era of ‘well, he drew first’ to an era where, in many Western countries, self-defense is not a defense! Where for one side of the political divide, both philosophically and legally the argument is that it is never right to hurt the other person, even when they are trying to kill you! Where putting broken glass on top of a cement wall is considered immoral because… the burglar might hurt themselves!

These issues make great political posts, and entertaining memes. But my point in this post is to point out that the division in our political rhetoric is not merely a matter of a lack of manners. That calling for more temperate discourse misses the point that… we really are divided. And with divisions as great as the Grand Canyon.

So the only way for us to ‘moderate our political discourse’, outside of one side winning, would be for one or both sides to constantly lie. To use words that did not reflect the real issues dividing them.