Three Divides: An Approach to Our Politics
“It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.”
Three divides in today’s politics encompass the majority of disagreement we encounter on the news each day; the old “right-versus-left,” the newer “open-versus-closed,” and another, more intrapersonal split I call the “humility” divide.
Right-versus-Left -
This divide has defined American politics for generations; big government versus small government, regulatory activism and social progress versus fiscal discipline and institutional stability, Ted Kennedy versus Ronald Reagan. The right-versus-left divide is so inherently understood it has almost become cliché.
The points and counter-points of this divide are therefore fairly easy to parse out. Those on the left would say that the government has a duty to protect the common man through centralized regulation and a strong safety net. To pay for the growing government and welfare state, the largest burden should be placed on the wealthiest; after all, they have the biggest pockets to pick. Many would argue the enormous sums of money spent on the military would be better spent on domestic projects and not foreign conflicts.
The right would then counter that the best way to improve life for the average citizen is to allow for a thriving economy that lifts all boats. The government should therefore get out of the way of business and the ambitious. We can achieve stability at home through the rigors and rewards of free enterprise and a traditional family structure, and stability abroad through the awesome might of our American military.
Of course there are many flaws with both sides of this divide. Perhaps those on the left that believe technological innovation and standard-of-living improvement will happen without profit incentives are as wrong as those on the right who believe social progress is possible without protest movements.
In any event, these flaws may be becoming increasingly irrelevant, as many have begun to argue — especially in the wake of Brexit and President Trump’s election — this understanding of our politics is obsolete.
Open-versus-Closed –
Several prominent public figures and publications — including Tony Blair, David Brooks, Fareed Zakaria, and the Economist — have argued that the most significant political divide is no longer between right and left, but between open and closed.
Usually people who observe this trend see Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as victories for the “closed” camp. These movements are skeptical of globalization, free trade, and immigration, and fear that acceleration in these trends will result in a loss of national identity, a dilution of western culture, and/or the exploitation of the working class by distant elites. They see little value in the increased standard of living free trade has brought many parts of the world if it means job losses in the American Midwest. Our first priority should not be to some multi-lateral treaty abroad, but to those hurting at home. An optimal world might just require walls and censorship.
Those who advocate for openness have taken their licks in recently, but would argue they have history on their side. Free trade has not only led to higher standards of living in the third world, but lower prices and thereby higher standards of living in the first world. Multi-lateral agreements between many nations lead to the predictability and stability necessary for world order, and study after study has shown the net benefit an expedient immigration system can have on an economy. Free thinking, movement, and expression are pillars of the enlightened society. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously defended free speech by invoking the benefits of a “marketplace of ideas.” In an ever-shrinking world, perhaps such a conception should also be applied to culture.
The open-versus-closed divide is more complicated to assign to political parties in the United States. After years of defending free trade, Republicans nominated protectionist Donald Trump. Despite eventually nominating neoliberal Hillary Clinton, Democrats were intoxicated with left-populist Bernie Sanders, whose views were open-critical at best. The Hillary (open) versus Trump (closed) election largely switched the traditional positions of the parties. Abroad, there was Emanuel Macron (open) versus Marie Le Pen (closed) in France, and a similar election is brewing in Germany.
Some have argued that the open-versus-closed divide does not really describe our political reality; after all, most of our current politicians still describe themselves on the old right-left spectrum. However, to understand political trends one should first look to the voters, and it would not be the first time politicians have fallen behind the people. Others argue this may be a biased way to characterize the divide. After all, would anyone really want to describe their position as “closed?”
The Humility Divide –
There is yet another divide. Beyond right and left, open and closed, there is a distinct divide in the way individuals approach and advocate for our politics. I call this the humility divide.
Those on one side of the humility divide recognize that their version of the world is limited to their own experiences and interpretations; that their moral and political impulses are drawn primarily from their gut and environment, not their reasoning minds. Therefore, while they may decide to advocate for their side, as is their right, they additionally realize that the lens through which they see the world may not always be the best. This has a humbling effect and allows for philosophical flexibility, garnering them a wider swath of friendships and a keen ability to interpret our world in flux.
Those on the other side of the divide approach the issues differently. Instead of self-skepticism, they believe that there are larger truths discoverable to an enlightened few. They, like all of us, start with their instinctual moral impulses. They then consume media and literature that reinforce those impulses; why liberalism, authoritarianism, progressivism, socialism, fascism, or centrism, etc is the best way for our society to function. It is not that they are unintelligent. Far from it; such thinkers are usually very skilled at debate and rhetoric. The world exists as a narrative that makes sense to them; it is truth.
Of course, there are many issues with this divide as well, and it can all get complicated quickly. (At a meta-meta level, is it arrogant to assume intellectual humility is actually superior to philosophical rigidity? Could intellectual humility just amount to being wishy-washy?)
To close, I will admit to having the hardest time not with persons on the other side of the right-left divide, or the open-closed divide, but the humility divide. I do not think I am alone. They span across all political spectrums and ideologies. Next time you are talking politics with another person, keep these three divides in mind. Where do they fall? Where do you?
