It’s said
there are two kinds of people: those who divide people into two kinds, and
those who don’t. Over/Under toilet paper mounting, ketchup/no ketchup on French
Fries, Coke/Pepsi, steak-and-potatoes/sushi-and-escargot…
I’m re-reading
John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage.
It comes to me that a general dichotomy of perspective has existed from day one
in the USA. It appears as early as the process of designing the Declaration of
Independence in 1776. It is a dichotomy of perspective that almost sank the
good ship USA before it was launched.
Basically, the
two positions are (1) the union is primary. (2) the separate states, regions, precincts;
indeed, individual persons, take priority. The latter was based upon a fear the
colonists brought with them: that all centralized government (and especially a
monarchy) would become tyrannical. Their solution was as little government as possible.
It remains a valid concern.
The former was
based on the democratic ideal of a centralized, representative government
deriving power from the people.
It’s tragic
and historically self-destructive when those different positions are seen as
opposing, rather than mutually edifying.
In 1776, the divisive
issue was slavery. It was not settled until the Emancipation Proclamation of
1863. Sadly, when slavery was abolished, the two sides found another whipping boy
and continued—indeed, the same two sides continue today—to find ways (1) to
defend the union at all costs or (2) to play the secession card when things aren’t
pleasing. It’s been that way since 1776. And it’s bi-partisan.
In the years
leading up to the Civil War, the debate raged. To preserve the balance of
power, the Missouri Compromise, engineered by Henry Clay, allowed Maine to enter
as a free state, and Missouri as a slave state. The compromise stipulated that
subsequent states would be admitted, alternating between free and slave.
As tensions heated
up, it became increasingly evident that the stalemate over slavery was irresolvable.
Massachusetts Senator, Daniel Webster, a skilled and refined orator and
statesman, and Missouri Senator, Thomas Hart Benton, rough-hewn, self-educated
and fiercely independent, took similar stands in favor of preserving the union,
and it cost them their political careers. The free states insisted that the
union must abolish slavery, and the slave states threatened—and eventually made
good on their threats—to secede.
From the
beginning, America essentially has been the product of these two sides: (1)
preserve the union at all costs, (2) my-way-or-I’m-gone. Both have been
bi-partisan. Hard-headedness has no party; and compromise is seen by
hard-headed people as weakness, surrender and betrayal. Our history is paved,
not on negotiation, compromise or diplomacy, but rather in wheeling and dealing
and partisan dominance.
Post-WWII
prosperity seemed to make the partisan slugfests in Washington irrelevant. But it
was still there, and that same prosperity provided the doorway to the next
level of the Union vs. territorial dominance debate. First through TV (the
Vietnam War and the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, etc. came into our
living rooms, exposing to the world that the American Camelot had clay feet)
and now through social media, the uproar and disorder have come out of the smoke-filled
rooms to infect the general public. The age of innocence is past.
There still
are those who place a primary value on the union itself; and there still are
those who say “If you don’t do what I want, I’ll take my marbles and go home.”
And, again, I find all parties equally guilty.
I am a
unionist. I am a Christian, and the writer of Ephesians identifies unity as the
“secret of God’s will” (Eph. 1:10). I believe nothing is more important to God
that the unity of creation. That’s a theological belief, and I have a right to
hold it and share it. I have no right to inflict it on anyone or legislate it
into the fabric of our nation. (Besides, I think the Constitution already has
woven it into the national fabric.)
I also am a
conflict resolution consultant, and I believe any difference can be resolved, if—and only if—both parties truly want
resolution. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people want resolution. Most just want
to win the fight.
Even for those
willing to seek resolution, the effort too often fails because the problem is
defined in terms of solutions—or desires or preferences—rather than in terms of
needs. When identified needs take precedence, solutions usually present themselves,
and usually are better than anything either party previously sought.
In the case of
our nation’s internal feud, what if we define our needs as “to form a more perfect
Union, establish
Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general
Welfare, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?”[1] Of
course, there still would be issues of definition. We don’t agree on what “justice”
means, or “general welfare;” or even “common defence;” therefore, we’re back to
square one: what “needs” are raised by considerations of “justice”? What needs are
exposed in a consideration of “the general welfare?
A good consultant
will push until those needs are
identified and until everyone’s needs are met. It can be done! I’ve seen it happen
in dozens of family conflicts; I’ve seen it happen in industrial settings
between management and labor, I’ve seen it happen between a school board and a
teachers’ union (my funniest experience involved a PTO—with a “pushy” president
with attitude—and the school administration); I’ve seen it happen in a deadlocked,
totally ineffectual city council, and I’ve seen it happen in church after
church.
It can happen!
We are better than this. And we are better together! “A house divided against
itself cannot stand” (Matthew 12:25[2]).
That’s the way
I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.
Together
in the Walk,
Jim
[1]
The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, in which the framers
laid out the purposes for the Constitution and for the government created by
that same Constitution.
[2]
Abraham Lincoln quoted this text in his speech accepting the Illinois
Republican nomination for US Senate, June 16, 1858.
