A National Divorce

As a new lieutenant in the Army, my commander assigned me to work on a project with another lieutenant in our company.  I did not care for this lieutenant, and he did not care for me. There was no specific reason, we just came from different backgrounds, liked different things, and employed different leadership styles. I approached my commander asking for a different partner. He demurred, saying he did not have another officer to assign to the duty. I offered to work with a sergeant. Again, he rebuffed me. I then offered to work on the task alone. At this point, his patience exhausted, he asked me why I did not want to work with this lieutenant. I admitted that we did not get along. My commander reminded me that it said U.S. Army on our uniforms and personal differences did not matter, completing the task mattered. I was to keep my opinions to myself and focus on solving the problem. Chastened, I left his office and during the ensuing weeks, discovered that I could work with the man and that he was not quite the knuckle-dragging-Cro-Magnon I imagined. I learned that one can put personal differences and beliefs aside, focus on a specific task, and make progress on seemingly intractable problems. This skill learned early, helped me throughout my military service. It is a skill woefully short in our public arena. In fact, some discard this idea altogether. 

One of the ideas espoused by some political talking heads, and elected officials of both parties, is the concept of a “National Divorce.” Briefly, this theory embraces the idea that socio-political differences run so deeply as to divide communities, making cohabitation impossible, and that states should exercise increasing autonomy, separating from each other, weakening our federation, and strengthening state and local authority, a semi-return to an articles of confederation situation, creating islands of blue and red across the continent. The difficulty of coming to a consensus in a pluralistic society drives, in part, this thought process. For many, political association forms a significant portion of their personal identity, and close proximity to those who think otherwise threatens their comfort, and in our increasingly talking-head-driven personal silo constructed world-view some see such a situation as unacceptable. Driven to the extreme, we view anyone who does not share our political affiliation as dangerous and seek a community that looks, feels, and thinks as we do.

While it is certainly more comfortable to surround ourselves with like-minded individuals, it does not bode well for a pluralistic society. Long ago, we embraced the concept of a working democracy in which individuals of differing backgrounds and beliefs might coexist in harmony, working together to solve societal problems, and coming to consensus through well-reasoned discussion; however, recently we seem to have either forgotten this or decided that it was too hard, requiring too much work. Perhaps, that is the real reason some call for a national divorce, dividing our nation into separate places for red and blue folks to reside. Working on difficult issues with someone that thinks differently takes great effort. Grappling with a new idea or concept stretches the brain, forcing one to consider things from another point of view. When working with the lieutenant I disliked, I found out why he led the way he did. Not only did it explain some of his actions, but surprisingly, I added a few new tools to my leadership toolkit. Ultimately, I profited greatly from working with someone very different from myself, despite the additional effort required.

When we give up on the democratic process and retreat into homogeneous communities, we lose something very worthwhile. Yes, working together to solve problems requires great effort and at times, compromise; but, the rewards outweigh the risks and the associated labor. Those who advocate for a “national divorce” may very well rob us of great profit for comfort. The work required to build a functioning pluralistic society is tremendous; however, we reap great rewards as a result of our labors. 

Of course, creating more homogenous communities is easier, in the short run; but, where do we stop? The idea of a national divorce implies accepting the denigration of “the other.” We would rather segregate ourselves than rub shoulders with someone who espouses something we do not. A national divorce, like a marital divorce, would be quite messy. What do you really know about your neighbors? While most of the people in your neighborhood, city, or state may support similar ideas, what gives us the right to expect them to uproot their families and move into a state you feel is more suited to their ilk? Who is going to design the litmus test for such segregation? That is what a national divorce truly means, a segregated society and a segregated society is fundamentally flawed at its core. We should not support the idea of separation, instead, let us gird up our intellectual loins and commit ourselves to the work required. The Founding Fathers laid out noble concepts for the building of a good, just society. From John Winthrop’s “City on a Hill (read the full version), through the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, we see a golden idea thread linking these and other documents, that of a society in which peoples of manifold differences work together to build something new, something better. This takes heart and soul. Let us not abandon this great experiment, called the United States. Let us reinvigorate ourselves and continue the work started so long ago. The work of building a society worthy of the descriptor, “City on a Hill.”