We Stand at Odds Together

As much as we bemoan it, the current divisiveness in American society is not unique or even very remarkable in the history of our Republic. Many issues have divided us more sharply (we did fight a civil war.) Most of these issues have been resolved or have become irrelevant. For instance nobody argues that we should no longer have a whiskey tax or that the Louisiana Purchase was a usurpation of presidential authority.

Within our divisions there are fundamental beliefs on which we all agree.

We believe that individual liberty is of such paramount importance that infringements should be made only after deep thought and extensive debate. In fact the “infringements” that we allow are usually a decision of which individual liberty takes precedence when two or more of them are in irreconcilable conflict. Many of the issues that occupy our attention today involve such conflicts in liberty. A pregnant mother has the right of choice and an unborn infant has a right to live. One person has a right to equal opportunity, and other people have the right to choose with whom they will associate and do business. One person has a right not to enable actions that they see as wrong, and other people have the right to services that person provides. For most of these issues both sides have a viable argument and there is no solution that everybody will agree on.

Fortunately we also believe that disagreement does not warrant violence. There are a few outliers who occupy federal buildings in Oregon, but consider the Bush-Gore election controversy. In many countries this discussion would’ve involved AK-47s in the street. In our country the court made a decision and the losers grumbled while they complied. Today people still argue about this issue but it’s a historical discussion almost devoid of passion. Some of today’s “hot button” issues will also grow cold. Others may remain controversial as long as there is a United States of America and perhaps beyond.

One issue has divided us since before there was a United States of America, and continues to do so today. The division is founded on a common belief, which is that government should represent the will of the people. In one view this means that the role of government includes identifying and eliminating or mitigating situations that adversely affect the people. Such “situations” range from poverty to disaster relief to climate change. In all of these there are people who sincerely believe that government should be figuring out what is wrong and fixing it. In the opposing view, regardless of noble beginnings, government will inexorably intrude into people’s lives and impose restrictions and “solutions” to problems real or imagined. The inevitable result will be unacceptable infringements on personal liberty. Therefore the people must be eternally vigilant in restricting government activities, even those that seem to have desirable results, because in the end the price will not be worth the benefit.

The line drawn between these viewpoints moves over time. For example in the early days of the Republic there was a powerful argument that national defense was the responsibility of states and there should be no military power at the federal level. Until the Louisiana flood of 1927 the government was not seen to have any role in disaster relief; by the time of Katrina in 1995 no one questioned that there should be federal measures to aid in relief and recovery. The EPA, in its early days, administered and enforced many regulations that today are the province of state agencies. At one time the US had a central bank, and today it does not. Every one of these changes has been fraught with argument and acrimony.

There is only one argument that makes no sense, although you hear it frequently, and that is “The people who disagree with me are going to destroy the country.” In all of our history there has been only one issue with that potential and that one has been resolved although we still deal with its echoes every day. For any other issue that you can name the most that can happen is that the line will be drawn – probably temporarily – and that will leave people dissatisfied who are on the near side of the line. Government will undertake programs and make laws to resolve “situations “and some people will see this as unacceptable infringement on personal liberty, whether actual or potential. Government will not address some “situations“ and some people will see this as failure to fulfill a basic role of government.

So the next time you hear somebody wailing that somebody or something is going to destroy the country (or, even more laughably, has already destroyed it) please remind them that they do not have a monopoly on defining America or what it means to be American. We do stand at odds on many things but we stand together on the things that matter.