"Healing the Divisive Personalization of Politics"
Tony Signorelli
Sunday, August 18 2007

A few years ago, before a family gathering, a few of the inlaws were at our house ahead of the big event. We got to talking politics, and this group was all of the same basic persuasion. The conversation was easy-going. One of my in-laws commented: “You know, we can’t have this conversation elsewhere because Sue and Dave simply won’t discuss it. They won’t discuss the war, taxes, or climate change. It just gets too emotional.”

Later that day, we gathered as a family at Sue & Dve’s home. It was as if the front door had a huge sign on that read: “Thou shalt not speak politics here.” Any of you had those signs at your family gatherings? Well, we did, and sure enough, we did not talk politics. We had a cordial time and went home.

Now, I am sure most of the family felt good that we got through an entire gathering without the fractious arguments and personal animosity that characterized previous gatherings. But look what happened. The infamous “kitchen table discussion” that’s been at the heart of American democracy for generations is gone. Our common problems, and the possible solutions to those problems, are not being discussed. We are disconnecting as a political body. Disconnecting. Dividing. Separating.

In short, the idea of a divided body politic—right-left, red-blue, liberal-conservative has infected our culture right down to the level of our homes. We assume we can classify people according to these categories. “I know one when I hear one,” said one. “If he reads the New York Times, he’s a liberal. If he watches Fox News, he’s a conservative.” And we think this way as if it tells us something true about the other person. We have let the idea of a divided body politic define and personalize our political conversations and dialog. Just like the vitriolic commentators on the right and the left, we attack the people rather than the ideas or policies. This is what I mean when I say that our politics are personalized. It makes most of us want to avoid it altogether, whether at work, school church, organizations, or even in our own homes. I submit to you that this is a tragedy for American democracy.

How did it get this way? A dear friend and I were discussing this the other day when she said: “You know, I always personalize the discussion—take it in personally—because it is the only way I can relate to it. I don’t know enough to objectify it or relate in any other way.” In a very simple statement, she illustrated our collective and individual lack of knowledge and lack of a framework for understanding politics and engaging in political dialog.

Into that vacuum has rushed a frame that is defined by the extremes of American society: that we are this divided nation. No doubt, people with extreme views on both sides are divided, and they detest each other personally. But most Americans are not extremists. Outrageous extremes make for good movies and good television, but most Americans hold a set of principles that are not extreme, that are basic to the foundation of a liberal democracy, and which we agree upon. Nonetheless, the division and the extremes and the personal attacks have brought on an increasing silence in the area of serious discussion. Shrill attacks? Yes. Deep avoidance? Yes. Serious consideration of our democracy? Hardly at all. We are falling silent as a people.

Here’s the tragedy: A silent people cannot solve common problems. A silent people cannot self-govern. A silent people loses, over time, its democracy.

So, what do we do about this? Cultural change is a big, long term job. But here are a few things to start with.

First, we need to develop a new frame to replace the liberal conservative split so we can create a more accurate, depersonalized frame for conversation. For example, we can differentiate principles and values. Principles are long term, basic accepted assumptions, independent and objective. They exist no matter how much you value them. Values, on the other hand, are individualized, subjective, and infinitely changing. As a result, values are always the source of our differences, and provide both divisiveness and diversity. On the other hand, principles endure, and underlie who we are as a people, a community, a nation.

Consider for example these three foundational principles of American democracy: private property, Rule of Law, and individual sovereignty. Principles like these were at the center of a civilization-level change when the West started turning away from feudalism, aristocracy, and clerical rule 500 years ago. All three were radical ideas because they liberalized political culture and undermined the entrenched powers. Revolutionary then, they’ve become the principled bedrock of our liberal society today. Value them or not, the principles persist in that bedrock.

Ken Wilber and other great thinkers and historians track this sweeping change in western society through our politics, religion, and economics, all of which were informed by an emerging new consciousness. We moved from pre-modern consciousness based on allegiance to individuals, honor, order, duty, and obedience, to a modern consciousness based on reason, individual experience and responsibility, and these other great principles. Many of the greatest contributions from this sweeping change, which started in the 1500s, came to fruition in the founding of America 200 years later.

We are now the guardians of this gift. Since its founding, America has tried to fulfill the promises of optimized liberty, often falling short, and always moved forward. As citizens, it is our responsibility and opportunity to enliven the commitment to these principles and enhance their activation. In the process, we will find that elusive common ground with our fellow citizens, and revitalize our liberal democracy.

Second, we need to educate ourselves about our democracy and our history. Many Americans understand that:

• The Bill of Rights was originally written primarily to protect individual liberty
• That private property is a core principle of conservative economics
• That Rule of Law means the president can’t break the law

Our ignorance, in fact, traps us. We are left with poor options:

• We can leave the conversation, which is to become isolated
• We can stop the conversation in order to void it
• We can personalize the conversation as a defense against isolation, but then we participate in the personal attacks

When we replace ignorance with knowledge, a few positive things happen. When we know liberal principles, the flow of our history, and the Bill of Rights, we gain power in two important areas of citizenship:

• The arguments of the uninformed can be ignored
• The arguments of those who are powerful but wrong, can be countered

• What is happening to the principles which underlie American liberal democracy since 1776?

I have gone to many places to speak about this, and I have found common ground in all kinds of communities.

• Catholic churches and Unitarian churches
• Rotary Clubs and Critical Thinking Clubs
• Political parties and academic communities
• Libertarians, progressives, moderates, and conservatives

We can open this third dimension: candidates, issues, and now structure of the democracy, to get to a perspective with healing and common ground. My book, Call to Liberty, is designed to be a primer on these issues. But you can also get started with Ken Wilber, Friedrich Hayek, or even Al Gore’s new book, Assault on Reason.

Let me close with an illustration: The parents of my daughter’s friend are very conservative. They listen regularly to Rush Limbaugh. I am an independent with strong progressive leanings on social issues, and conservative leanings on fiscal issues. I’m not as progressive as they think. They see me through the lens of the liberal-conservative split. I see them through the lens of American democratic citizenship and shared principles. Although we disagree in diametric opposition on most issues, we not only talk politics every time we get together, we do so with civility, and all of us learn something. At a recent party, the wife in this couple introduced me to some guests I had not previously met. “This is Tony Signorelli. He’s my favorite liberal. It’s great to talk with him,” she said, “because although we disagree on much, it never gets personal.” That’s bridging the divide. That’s finding common ground. That’s opening the dialog. It is healing in our otherwise polarized church-school community. With time, study and practice, it can be healing for you too. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. Blessings to you.