President Biden’s inaugural speech highlighted his hope for unity in America. That message generated words of praise in the general media and was reinforced with corresponding calls for bipartisanship.
But what do those terms mean in modern day America? Unity about what? Bipartisanship for what?
They are vacuous words without context. If the calls are for Americans of different views to remember the values which unites us as a people, that has meaning. But it is thin guidance without considering the reasons for disunity.
If one side doesn’t believe that the other shares its basic values (fairness, commitment to freedom, patriotism, among others), the wish for unity is ephemeral. Not so long ago, it was accurate to say that although there might be strong differences on policy means, the desirability of certain ends was generally not disputed. Most Americans wanted what was best for our nation and her people and agreed as to what that was: a strong America as a beacon for freedom around the world, economic prosperity, a vibrant democracy and, perhaps most importantly, a respect for fellow citizens regardless of their differing backgrounds and perspectives. Most of us were united as fellow Americans in ways that mattered.
And political bipartisanship mattered, too. There was a recognition that even though there might be strong differences between the parties as to the means toward a desired end, no lasting progress toward that objective would be accomplished without compromise. Each side, of course, wanted its preference to prevail but having respect for the good intentions of the opposition, neither side considered seeking common ground an abandonment of righteousness.
No more.
These days differences of political opinions are typically not attributed by one side to well-intentioned but mistaken views of the other. Rather, they are the result of malevolence, ignorance, character deficits and any combination thereof.
In sum, the opposing viewpoint holder is not respected. Note the negative appraisal is not confined to different views. It includes, usually venomously, the person espousing it as well. That makes it personal. Expecting unity to result in such circumstances is naïve in the extreme.
People can forget – and do – strong policy disputes; the sting of ad hominem attacks lingers indefinitely.
So what to do? As an academic point, The Sensible Conservative, having long been a recipient of such attacks, can say the “true believers” on the left started the intolerance. But that no longer matters. The extreme, hostile disrespect now permeates both sides.
Yes, focusing on the values we still share (and they are?) would be good but not likely. Can we at least agree – with the help of media, entertainment, sports, etc. - to stop calling each other disparaging names?
Perhaps the reduction of disrespectful language might lead to a renewed appreciation for civility. In that environment, maybe mutual respect can reappear.
It would be a start.
