A nation divided

Let’s face it. Our nation is divided, and neither side seems eager to mend this growing schism. Although the situation may seem hopeless, there are a few things we can do to get along with our neighbors, even those with whom we disagree.

It seems obvious today that people would rather seek out like-minded individuals and surround themselves with information that confirms their deeply held opinions. But what might happen if we spent more time finding common ground in our beliefs?

Our differences should not be ignored and, in fact, should be celebrated, even the difference between Democrats and Republicans, as these political parties simply represent different strategies for governance and economic policy.

What if we lost the vitriol and instead substituted a willingness to listen?

With the following example, it can be illustrated how one can find common ground where there seems to be disagreement.

But first, let’s examine the stats.

At the end of last year, race relations and uniting the country politically were among the top concerns for US citizens to address (Gallup, 2024). Both of these problems, however, have seemingly only gotten worse.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) predicts hate crimes to increase, and just this year, only 34% of people are registered as moderates, so we are becoming more divided.

Finally, workforce conflict is on the rise.

A Myers-Briggs study showed that managers spend an average of 4.3 hours per week dealing with team conflict. Chances are likely that these team conflicts have to do with political or other differences.

Identity politics has apparently become engulfed in a left team, right team wrestling match at work, thereby indirectly affecting our economy. Even the bottom line is being affected now by disagreements between people who represent different beliefs.

How do we navigate a divided social environment where everybody has their own needs but must live in the same society?

One major tactic is to always give the other, the outsider, the benefit of the doubt when there seems to be a disagreement. Instead of automatically assuming the other side is wrong, we could look for the kernel of truth in what they say.

For example, we could understand that Republicans and Democrats are different in that they attack the same issues from a different angle, and a balance between the two angles is what we should strive for.

If we look, there is always common ground to be found. Often, we are arguing or having two parallel conversations and purposely not seeing the other side’s point of view.

There seems to be a growing trend of willfully misreading statements that we already know that emerge from the other side, part of the echo chamber effect of social media.

For example, on social media the other day, I saw two statements back-to-back that seemed to be arguing with each other, but in the end, were saying two different things, both valid.

One said essentially that no one is born equal when it comes to social classes, physical ability and things like that. This alone is true. I believe the spirit of this message was to say that not everyone has the right to the benefits enshrined in the Constitution.

Why not just say the obvious? Where and to whom we are born makes a difference. There are no cookie-cutter births. We are all different, yet alike.

According to the famed economist Thomas Sowell, equality doesn’t even appear in ourselves.

“No one is equal to anything,” he said. “Even the same man is not equal to himself on different days.”

So what is there to do?

Are all citizens born with equal rights? Under the law, of course. The trickier part is enforcing the mountain of laws that protect us and sometimes confine us.

Yes, we are all born with the same constitutional rights, yet we are born unequal in other ways, two things that are not necessarily in contradiction.

Regardless of how economically feasible it is to address the problem of identity politics and making sure everyone’s needs are met if you reread both the statements with politics out of the picture, both can be true.

We cannot expect everyone to attain the same level of success as others, but providing every citizen with access to the same opportunities is the true dilemma of governance:

Ultimately, we must simultaneously acknowledge our differences and recognize our interconnectedness. Our goal with others should be to foster less conflicted relationships in a divided world.

We may find we do not disagree as often, and as much, as we think we do. We are just having two parallel conversations.

Now, if only both sides of the political aisle would get behind this newfound connectedness, it may make a difference, whether they want to admit it or not.