Like a bridge over political divides
How I’ve found connection across the lines drawn in our political sand.
Yesterday, several family members reached out for permission to share what I wrote in our family’s political email discussion. There are so many people I know — especially in my religious/Mormon social circles — who feel caught in the polarized pulls of this political moment. I think the stress and uncertainty of this year has collectively pushed us deeper into “either/or” ways of thinking. Unfortunately, these false binaries do not provide an accurate portrayal of our world and the choices we have in it. So, I wrote some thoughts up on how I’ve approached this conflict and shared it with my family. And now I’m sharing it publicly as a Medium article for anyone else interested.
This article is intended to share my thoughts only — I’ve purposely removed the names of other family members to respect their privacy. As thrilled as I am at putting myself out there to be potentially lambasted by friends and trolls — I don’t want to inflict that on my loved ones.
“Hi family,
Guess who has ten fingers, a laptop, and just added a novel to your inbox?
I’m really glad this family discussion is taking place. [Family Member A], thank you for getting it started, and thank you to everyone who has contributed since.
Like many of you, my news feeds and social circles are currently filled with polarizing, hard-lined stances about each other and the issues facing us. Examples:
- “If you vote for (fill-in-the-blank policy or politician), you must be…”
- “Any patriot who truly loves their country would never…”
- “To be a faithful member of the church, you must…”
I’ll admit, it’s been overwhelming at times. Enough so that a few months ago, in an effort to more thoughtfully navigate the ideological whiplash I was feeling, I put some sticky notes on my office wall with quotes to help ground me. The first is some wisdom from Brené Brown:
“The opposite of living in a world of false binaries is practicing integration — the act of bringing together all the parts of ourselves…”
The others are descriptions of Javert’s internal conflict at the close of Les Miserable:
“[Javert] held before him two paths, both equally straight; but he beheld two. And that terrified him — him who had never in all his life known more than one straight line….”
and
“God [was presenting] an injunction to the soul to recognize the veritable absolute when confronted with the fictitious absolute: humanity which cannot be lost.”
These quotes have helped remind me to embrace nuance when I’m not feeling so inclined — a skill which doesn’t always come naturally to me.
I understand the draw toward “either/or” thinking. Binaries simplify complexity; they make the world easier to navigate; and they draw rigid lines between good and bad which helps us feel a sense of safety, control, and belonging. Unfortunately, binaries also remove common ground, making it difficult to fully see each other across our differences. And when we function within these false binaries, we miss the humanity living in, on, and around all our lines drawn in the sand.
The times I’ve had to confront my own rigid, Javert-like ideas & beliefs have been some of the most difficult and meaningful experiences in my life. And I’m grateful for Valjean-like people who have pushed me to see beyond the singularity of my own world views. A mentor of mine referred to this process of developing nuanced perspectives as “divine paradigm shifts” — a phrase I just love.
Anyway, I think this is one of the reasons I love this email discussion — it’s another opportunity to reevaluate some of those fear-based lines I see drawn in the sand. So, with the hope of seeking common ground and building closer connections, I want to talk through a few false binaries I’ve had to work through.
False Binary 1: Partisanship on Constitutional Rights
In many ways having a two-party system produces an institutionalized false binary: dividing a host of complicated issues, policies, and perspectives into two distinct, opposing camps. “Partisan bundling” is an understandable byproduct of this system. However, with respect to Constitutional rights, I do not understand assertions claiming certain rights will only be protected by one political party, but not the other. For me, debating whether or not a specific party supports the Constitution is a moot point — they both do, based on the oath of office held by their elected members.
Every representative sworn into political office (within both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency), regardless of party affiliation, vows to uphold the Constitution and the Amendments therein. This means our Constitutional rights — including the freedom of religion and the right to bear arms — sit beyond the constructs of party lines. I fully support evaluating how well elected officials are abiding by their oath; however, this is a matter of individual behavior, not the party to which they ascribe. For this reason I value discussions which step beyond Constitutional partisanship — which can quickly turn into fear tactics instead of thoughtful deliberation — and focus instead on how elected officials can better support our collective rights.
Freedom of Religion
Again, the matter of religious freedom is not whether the freedom of religion will be protected by specific parties, but how. How is a far more nuanced discussion, as the First Amendment protects the faith and beliefs of every person in our country; beliefs which differ as well as overlap in complicated, fascinating ways. This reality means, at times, there will be policies that support another’s freedom of religious expression while consequently restricting my own (and vise versa). It’s a complicated reality that will constantly be reflected and negotiated in our laws, policies, and practices; and I support the need for this fluid give and take. Personally, if I have any grievance to air about the dangerous intersection of religion and politics, it rests with leaders and/or political platforms who leverage faith and fear to manipulate political gains. For me, this is a far more serious, and deeply unsettling, issue facing our country.
*With respect to the Pledge of Allegiance, I’ll admit it wasn’t until recently that I actually took the time to research its history and origins. So I’ll share just a few things I learned which have helped put this (understandably-contentious) issue into context for me:
- Since its first use in 1892 — in celebration of Christopher Columbus — the intended use of the pledge (as well as its wording) has changed repeatedly;
- The Pledge, while deeply integrated into our civil lives, is not an official document of the US Constitution;
- The words “under God” were not a part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when it was adopted as a political response to the Cold War.
I can understand how both including, as well as removing, the wording “under God” creates a highly heated conflict for many within our country. For me, regardless of individual or legal actions taken toward the Pledge of Allegiance, I believe our country valued God and faith before 1954, and so I also believe it can value and support that right and freedom regardless of its wording.
The Right to Bear Arms
Again, as a Constitutional right the partisan differentiation on the 2nd amendment comes down to: not whether the right should exist or not, but how and to what degree citizens should be able to exercise this right.
I grew up going to shooting ranges with parents and grandparents who owned guns and went deer hunting nearly every year. [My husband] and I own a few hunting firearms, though admittedly they function primarily as heirlooms (we’re regular sharpshooters over here). At the same time, I have been painfully impacted by gun violence — starting with the Columbine shooting in my childhood hometown of Littleton, CO and subsequent shootings since, all of which have significantly affected my personal and professional life. Given these experiences, I am strongly in favor of wise and improved measures of gun reform. Personally, I’ve never had an issue with upholding the second amendment while also advocating for gun reform — the two are not incompatible in my eyes.
**Also, if I may, I’d like to directly address a recent comment stating the right to bear arms as “our most important of all Amendments.” I’ve heard several arguments endorsing this line of thought, their premise claiming the 2nd Amendment as vital for protecting our ability to defend our other rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, so far the reasoning I’ve heard behind these arguments has been deeply flawed and unconvincing; however, I’m open for a friendly debate on the issue. In the meantime, I would find it helpful to reframe your comment as: the right to bear arms is the most important Amendment for you. Personally I would have listed:
- the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, & the right to petition the gov’t (1);
- the prohibition of slavery (13);
- the freedom to vote regardless of race (15);
- and my personal right as a woman to vote (19);
as just a few Amendments of greater importance. But, again, that’s my perspective.
False Binary 2: Pro-life v. Pro-choice
This has already been discussed, so I won’t add much here. Personally, I do not consider the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” to be constructive terms for discussing abortion. Under these identifications one could technically argue that every member of our church is both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” given that we (1) honor the sanctity of life and (2) hold agency at the core of God’s plan; even, and especially, when someone’s agency is used counter to our own. In my experience, the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are used far too often to sidestep genuine, though admittedly uncomfortable, conversations on larger issues of pregnancy, childcare, reproductive health, and social welfare. Thank you [my husband] & [Family Member C] for your thoughtful expansions on the topic.
False Binary 3: Capitalism v. Socialism
Oh, boy…I’m going there. ;)
I’m diving into this specific subject because, in many ways, it sets the stage for a host of other hotly debated issues I would love to discuss in greater depth: the role & responsibility of government, civil rights and responsibilities, matters of equity and social justice (racism, classism, sexism, ableism, etc), etc. By taking the time to unbundle our country’s relationship with capitalism & socialism a little more, I’m hoping to shift future discussions so they can:
- reach beyond the polarizing debate of “good v. bad,”
- allow for more nuance within these ideologies (personally and politically), and
- provide an effective space to discuss how principles from both ideologies impact the issues that matter to us and/or affect us personally.
I’ll preface this discussion by stating, aside from some introductory college courses in political science and economics, the larger political & economic ramifications of capitalism and socialism do not fall directly within my field of expertise. However, I’ve spent a substantial amount of my academic and professional life studying the economics of our US education systems, the purview of which provides valuable insights into our country’s larger economic system as well as the overarching relationship dynamics between free market enterprise and public goods & services.
To start, it would be helpful to clear up a few misnomers embedded into our country’s political conversations on this topic:
- Conflating socialism with communism. These two ideologies are frequently (though inaccurately) branded together, primarily done as a fear tactic for political agendas (i.e. Cold War era politics and other “Red” scares throughout history). However, it is vital to delineate the two: socialism and communism are not interchangeable ideologies.
- Making flat comparisons of economic policies across differing governance structures. Socialism and capitalism are highly contextual economic practices and, as such, do not function uniformly across countries. The same capitalist or socialist endeavor executed in Norway vs. Japan vs. China. vs. Canada vs. US (etc.) will produce different results and consequences. These blanket comparisons create false equivalencies which, in turn, propagate misinformation.
- Strictly aligning capitalism with the US Republican party and socialism with the US Democratic party. Along with the vast majority of “first-world” countries across the globe, the United States utilizes a mixed economy — leveraging a nuanced blend of both capitalist & socialist principles. So, polarizing these ideologies along partisan lines creates a bit of a straw man argument.
For example: Yes, the current Republican platform strongly endorses principles of capitalism such as free market forces, limited government restrictions, and decreased taxation. However, it also strongly supports principles of socialism such as social security benefits, government subsidies & protections for designated industries (i.e. agriculture, oil, coal, etc.), increased funding for military and civil police forces, and greater overall investment in our national defense. The border wall, for example, is a predominantly socialist endeavor supported by both public and private capital. A similar list can also be created for the current Democratic platform. The point is, both political parties endorse capitalism and socialism; the differentiation lies in what sectors of our economy and to what extent?
All this in mind, effective discussions on this issue need to shift from the rigid binary of capitalist v. socialist = good v. bad and move to a conversation debating how we want to balance these two necessary ideologies — within each sector of industry & society — in a way that can best meet our country’s current and future needs.
Our family: Socialists, capitalist, or both? :)
This leads me to a point from [Family Member C]’s email regarding entrepreneurship and the benefits capitalism provides for specific members of our family. Having launched and worked for several startups myself, I agree with [Family Member C] on the value free market enterprise presents for entrepreneurship, innovation, and risk-taking.
Sassy sidenote: C’mon [Family member C], what’s a girl gotta do to get a little professional recognition in your list of family entrepreneurs?
Our economy is a necessarily-complicated tapestry of capitalist and socialist policies and institutions, each presenting their own sets of pros/cons.
At the same time, I also recognize that my work — along with everyone else’s — is fully reliant on a nuanced interaction of socialism & capitalism. For example, my professional life constantly brokers private and public sectors: launching for-profit and nonprofit ventures, working within public and private educational institutions, collaborating across academic and industry research projects, utilizing funding from private and public research grants, etc. As such, my career is just as dependent on socialism and it is capitalism. Given this line of thought, its fairly easy to unbundle the labor/livelihood of every person in our family and identify the benefits we each receive from this interwoven relationship of capitalist & socialist principles:
- Some of us (such as the family members [Family member C] listed) engage in professional spaces where private enterprises depend upon public goods & services (i.e. healthcare, education, gov’t grants & subsidies, etc.) to generate profit.
- Others of us (educators, social workers, researchers, PTA leaders, jury duty members, etc.) work within public institutions which support and capitalize on resources produced through private enterprise (e.g. drug manufacturing; medicinal/educational/financial technologies; private grants/investments; private legal services; etc.).
- Everyone here, as well as our children, utilize or have utilized the benefits of public &/or private education (preK-12 → higher ed); a system with capitalism and socialism deeply interwoven throughout.
Case in point: Who here has a child/grandchild enrolled in a public school which relies on tech (i.e. devices, learning apps, LMS’s, audio & video platforms, Zoom/Google Meet, etc.) to support their learning?
- And finally, each member of our family provides and/or depends upon unpaid or underpaid caregiving within private and public spaces (homes, schools, nursing facilities/end-of-life services, daycares, etc.) — arguably one of the most overlooked aspects keeping our economy running. In fact, the dismissal — and, in turn, financial undervaluing — of caregiving, in my opinion, is one of the primary ills impacting our nation’s economic wellbeing and festering its societal failings. But that’s a discussion for another day. ;)
What I’m trying to say is, our economy is a necessarily-complicated tapestry of capitalist and socialist policies and institutions, each presenting their own sets of pros/cons. Unchecked capitalism and unchecked socialism both carry a danger for our economy and society. And our presumptions of which ideology best serves us, and our nation, is more often than not a reflection of the bias of our own experiences, beliefs, and goals. This is why I’m grateful we are a government of checks and balances — not just across branches of government, but within our economic and civil laws, policies, and practices themselves.
The process behind how I vote (for anyone still reading and interested at this point)
While I don’t really have a scripted process, there are a few factors I weigh out when voting for elected officials, none of which depend on party affiliation. My main considerations are:
- Do they strive to abide by a code of values & ethics?,
- Do they hold both themselves and others accountable?,
- What is their personal and professional experience & track record?,
- How well do they listen to, respect, and surround themselves with perspectives counter to their own? and
- To what degree do their political goals align with what I value?
The last factor I consider is: Which type of office will they be occupying?
For example, when I’m voting for regional representatives (local, state, national), the degree to which the candidates align with my own beliefs/perspectives may carry more weight since their role in government is to function as a representative of their constituents (which includes me).
Presidential elections are different for me. Because we are an interdependent society, I believe voting in my best interest here involves voting in the best interest of those around me; even when that does not directly benefit me. Since the President of the United States must make decisions in service of the entire country — not just a specific base of constituents, I want the candidate who most embodies the qualities needed to honor this responsibility. So, I will gladly vote for someone who may not support policies aligned with my beliefs or interests, so long as I consider them the candidate who will best serve the greater principles & collective needs of our country. For me, these qualities include their ability to: (a) build relationships of trust, domestically and internationally; and (b) wisely/ethically orchestrate the nuanced dynamics of society, government, and the economy — including all their related checks & balances.
I have soooo many more thoughts on this topic (and others), but for the ~3 people still reading these emails, I’m going to cut things off here.
As others have indicated, you are more than welcome to reach out to me if you want to talk more. However, I am low-key terrible at responding to just about every form of communication in a timely manner (text, phone call, GroupMe, email, carrier pigeon, etc.). So please know that by the time I get back to you, we may well be into the next election cycle. ;)
Happy voting!
Kristi”
