Remember, I know best...
Who said that?
We clearly are in a time of great division in America. Guess what. This is nothing new. This country went to war with itself, about 150 years ago, over the issue of slavery. It's been pretty rough and tumble ever since.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. This nation was founded on the understanding that no group of power elites can form the ideal government. Our founding fathers in fact understood that there is no ideal government. But we can all hope to work toward "a more perfect union".
These United States have never been all that united. Is that bad? If we are all supposed to agree, somebody is going to have to change. Of, course that somebody is you. Right? Certainly, you can’t think I’m going to change for you; so you will have to change for me. Got a problem with that? Well, so does everybody. That doesn’t leave much choice but to recognize that we are not all alike, and we’re never going to all think alike. The best we can hope for is compromise. I’ll give a little if you’ll give a little. And if we can’t come to an agreement, then we just don’t make any changes. If we want changes, then work it out. That’s what husbands and wives do (in successful marriages). That’s what good neighbors do.
Why is politics in Washington not like that? Largely because we have two parties pretending that they can, between them, adequately represent the interests of all 330 million of us. And worst of all, if either of those parties can amass a majority, they presume that that majority is its own justification for enforcing their agenda on all of us. Common sense says that a majority, in order to validate its very existence, must acknowledge that the minority has the very same rights as the majority. In truth, the majority may give lip service to the term "inclusion", but that never happens, where they can avoid it.
I started writing this for perhaps an odd reason. That reason is that I once saw a video concerning William Howard Taft. It contained all the usual biographical stuff; president, supreme court chief justice, etc. But one thing really struck me because it was so contrary to what we experience today. Taft, as Supreme Court Chief Justice, did not want cases resolved by mere majorities. No 5-4 decisions for him. He kept the justices at the table until decisions were reached with uber majorities, as close to 9-0 as possible. He didn't have to do this; he simply recognized the desirability of it. And it is desirable. The majority and minority working together to find the common ground. What a concept!
Imagine what our two, barely legitimate, political parties might accomplish if they each felt that their policies could not be fully justified without buy-in from the other party. It's been like that, off and on, throughout our history. With Taft, it was on. Today, it's off.
So, how do you think it got this way? Feel free to comment.