Looking back on the Obama years, 2009-2017, one cannot help thinking they were like the 1950’s. Eight years of a national leader most folks respected. Eight years of relative calm, minimal anxiety. No Eisenhower or Obama Derangement Syndrome.
The years since 2017 have laid bare an infection within the epidermis of the American body politic. With some exceptions to be sure, Californians, Oregonians, Washingtonians, New Yorkers, folks from Massachusetts and Vermont and DC want nothing to do with people who live in, were born and raised in Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas, and a few other places.
Millions of Americans are scared to death of what are now commonly lumped together as “Christian Nationalists.”
What is the problem? How about Immigration? America First? Abortion? Gender Identity? Books in Schools?
Popular media rarely identifies in plain English the root differences between the human beings in each camp. When one understands the twin problems, one realizes where we are today. Twin problem?
Yes. First, is the basic ISSUE DIFFERENCE. Second is WHAT TO DO with the issue difference.
The American experiment has always been based on the belief that people of good faith debate issues, vote on them through the candidates for office who seek to represent them at various levels, accept the results of that vote, with the loser shaking hands and going back to the drawing board, hoping to do better the next time. That is the experiment. It is called DEMOCRACY.
But what happens when the loser does not accept the results? What happens when the person who disagrees with you not only disagrees with you but believes you are dangerous and must be stopped at all costs?
If the latter becomes the dominant way of life, there is no more democracy.
So let’s take abortion and drill down to the core.
Pro Choice: the real, accurate description of this person, most of the time, is very different from the stereotype. This person believes abortion should be safe, legal and rare. This person believes that Justice Harry Blackmun and later Sandra Day O’Connor crafted masterpieces of judicial compromise by recognizing the concept of “viability,” leaving the decision regarding abortion to the woman up to 24 weeks, but thereafter giving the government a role but protecting the health of the mother and the sanctity of the moment for the woman in cases of rape and incest. Pro Choice meant acceptance and support for those decisions for the past 20 and more years. And Pro Choice has never meant support for policies such as “ abortion on demand” or abortion at 40 weeks. Pro choice has always meant that the priority decision makers should be the woman and her doctor; the government a distant third and only after viability (recognizing that no woman and no doctor will ever be associated with a post viability abortion unless the woman’s physical or mental health or the condition of the fetus warrants the procedure)).
Pro Life: This person, man or woman, believes life begins at conception. Lately, conception has been a moving target. Some folks believe that egg + sperm = embryo means human even though science has long known that whether in the uterus or in the lab, many embryos will not become a baby that develops to term (Never thought I’d be teaching sex ed in my old age). The pro life person has various levels of rigidity related to their “life begins at conception” foundation. The most liberal of them believe that Roe v Wade was wrong because abortion is an issue best left to the states. Some believe in a ban after 16 weeks, others say no abortion after 6 weeks and others say no abortion ever, even in cases of rape or incest.
Privacy? Woman’s right to control her own body? Well let’s be real here. The only way that anyone can call abortion at and following conception “murder” is because he or she equates the embryo/fetus with the woman who cut’s the mother’s hair. If Mom pulled a knife and killed her stylist, that’s murder. The Pro Life person sees no difference between that murder and any abortion, anytime, anywhere.
What is not said often enough is this. We must all respect and understand this pro life perspective. It is grounded in religion, spirituality, a belief in the miracle that is human reproduction.
The problem for our nation is that a clear and unmistakable majority of its inhabitants do not see human life as do the Pro Life adherents. A clear majority see the embryo and the fetus in a very different way. And, we Pro Choice people are quick to identify the irony of the pro life people. They are usually economic conservatives and thus hate government spending. In other words, flood the nation with unwanted babies and then provide too little money for their support once born to moms who usually cannot afford to care for them.
And yet, since 2017, the Pro Life folks are not willing to have a free and fair up or down vote of all Americans on the issue and to live peacefully among us with the outcome.
That is what is new.
And, the same attitude exists regarding immigration, foreign policy, gender identity and education.
Our nation now appears to be defined by what President Biden called “You only love your country when you win.”
Our present life and times may just be the most historic in our history. Are we capable of continuing this grand experiment in Democracy? Yes, if you, who disagree with me will accept me and my views. You? If you believe in Democracy, I will always accept any traditional conservative views you may hold. But if you are a Trump supporter, an election denier, one who believes our courts and justice system are rigged, we have nothing to talk about, nothing in common, and no reason to live together side by side, each with our olive branch, in search of peace. Because one of us is not interested in peace, a concept rooted in truth.
There you have it. Democracy at its core depends upon truth.
Can we start there?