Political extremes dominate the conversation despite representing a small minority. Reviving democratic discourse requires a bold recommitment to moderation.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. It's taken me a while to realize that a lot of our conflicts arise from the intersection of two legitimate claims. The wrong way is to demonize the other side and ignore their concerns; the right way is to try to listen with humility and not find where they are wrong and you are right. (Easier said than done.)
From a life-long democrat, once considered myself a liberal/progressive but now I’m a moderate, thank you for this thoughtful approach to politics today. I live in Massachusetts where if you say one small thing that might oppose the progressive line, you’re handed your hat and asked to leave. However, it is changing. Slowly, the moderates are creeping out of the closet and starting to voice their opinions again, less afraid of being shunned or cancelled. I look forward to the day when nuance, respect for another’s differing opinion, critical thinking, and compassion are the pointers we follow.
Greg, so great to hear your voice adding a more integrally minded perspective into the conversation. While it may be true that there is no common ground to be found between the extremes, there is indeed higher ground above and beyond them. A place where basic human dignity, of both oneself and others, is a given, and the question is not "How can we all agree?" but instead "How can we find ways to constructively live together in spite of our disagreements?"
Beautifully put, David. Yes, a higher ground that transcends the extremes while including their humanity. Living together despite our disagreements is one of the keys to democratic discourse. That's why, as you well know considering the theme next to your name, wholeness not unity per se, is essential. Philosopher Danielle Allen speaks of wholeness in her work: https://traditiononline.org/the-best-talking-to-strangers/
Thanks for the wholeness link above here, Greg, I appreciate it.
I too love Murray's Omni-American framework as one such way preserve the upsides across the individual and collective polarity in play here. Some concepts I've been tinkering with in an attempt to aim towards that higher ground include "Wholeness, not Uniformity," as a way to feature the core need for individual differentiation, and "Cosmopolitan, not Multi-cultural" as a way to feature the core need for a larger wholeness.
What other Both/And frames do you find to be particularly helpful in your conversations these days?
I like your article but I don’t agree with you on the extremists representing a small minority of both sides. I voted for Obama twice and voted Democrat about 85% of my 69 years young life but walked away from the Democrat Party after Obama began to support BLM and the anti-White DEI deceit and their false narratives against police, our criminal justice system, and America 🇺🇸 as all “systematically” racist. For 13 years I’ve watched the Democrat Party embrace the most radical elements of their Party; from defunding and demonizing the police, an all out assault on free speech, a vicious cancel culture, vicious anti white racism, divisive identity politics, misguided trans insanity at so many levels, as radical Party as I’ve ever seen. To be certain there is no equivalency between the two Parties. Not even close! Nevertheless I enjoyed your article.
Good piece. I especially like your point about folks who take our position being too "nice." In this rough-and-tumble world, we've got to be willing to forcefully repudiate those extremes and, once in power, engage in what we call "antagonistic cooperation."
Meaningless conclusion. Your conclusion is based on your view of the "right" way to think: "The journey toward such wisdom requires the cultural skill to facilitate deep democratic conversations across worldview codes, from indigenous and traditional to modern and postmodern."
The challenge is that everyone views they are "right". Even the words "truth" and "facts" no longer mean the same thing to everyone.
Those in the religious right view "truth" as something that their god tells them. Either through a personal relationship, their clergy, or their personal interpretation of their "scripture". Trump and Kelly Ann Conway undermine what the word "facts" means. Kelly Ann made this especially apparent with the phrase "alternative facts".
Those on the extreme left focus on ideology over "truth" or "facts". A trans woman is a woman no if and or buts. Sexuality at birth is meaningless. "White people" are racists. Especially when they deny they are racist. The US is a colonizer. It is the reason all minorities are not as successful as white men. Israel/Zionists is are colonizer and guilty of genocide in Gaza. I could go on.
It's natural for people to align with their "tribe". That is the basis of the "human condition". No high minded concept of "deep democratic conservations across worldview blah blah blah" will change that.
Culture defines government. Government does not create culture. The US is the most culturally diverse country in the world and that has ever existed. The US was founded based on protestant Christian culture. That culture dominated (e.g. at 80% levels) well into the 21st century. It's eroding quickly. I'm thinking it's at best 50% today and likely less.
We cannot have the strong federal government we have when cultures are so diverse. I'm not a fan of Trump but he's got one thing right, power needs to move to the states. Letting states decide on abortion is the right answer. But the real source of power in the federal government is the 16th amendment. "Follow the money" as the saying goes. Less than 600 people control the biggest pot of money that has ever existed. And they have the power to make it bigger. Trump uses the federal $ as a weapon against states, universities, organizations, etc that he disagrees with. So does congress.
At some point, either peacefully or through violence, the 16th amendment needs to be overturned and taxation needs to be move back to the states and maybe communities. States can fund programs in the federal government that are universally agreed to. The Military, the $ and international relations are my guess as to the common ground.
I get that you would rather "talk this out" to make sure we peacefully come to an answer. I don't see that happening. I see states eventually just deciding they're done being threaten with cutoff of funds by the federal government that is controlled by the other party. They will edict that they will not support their residents being taxed with no control on how the money gets back to them. Ideally all states will jump on board and agree to a constitutional convention that radically reduces the power of the federal government as the founders originally intended. But it could come to violence like in the civil war or even more recently the Black Lives Matter protests and Jan 6.
Bottom line, the first step is to acknowledge reality. High minded ideals are not reality.
Democratic conversations occur in everyday life, not just in politics or government. Yes, it's natural for people to align with their tribe. In 2025, many Americans will have more than one "tribe" that they identify with. And fortunately, it's possible to cultivate the skills to communicate across and within tribal categories. Further, one can be rooted, tribal, local, and worldly and cosmopolitan at the same time.
I'm a Black American--that's my ethnocultural tribe, so to speak. I'm an American, writ large, my national identity. There are some diasporic affinities, too, across the Atlantic. One's identity, these days, can cross into many zones and categories.
If we can't find a way to relate to and communicate with each other through our differences, we're doomed. My essay urges those in the exhausted middle to speak up and stand up, and have the courage to be less tribal.
The history of the human condition is not on your side on that happening.
Even the UN is losing its creditability because of its need to make judgements.
It's interesting to note that the UN is not the organization that anyone goes to to "peaceful talk this out". The Trump plan for Gaza and Israel being the latest example. Countries go to the UN to engage in a war of words with other countries and try and build coalitions. The ICJ being the worst example.
I propose a very peace and logical solution to the divide in the country. Do you believe that solution will happen by "just peacefully talking it through?"
That's a necessary step. Is it sufficient to solve all problems? Of course not. But it's a necessary initial step, followed by action, political and otherwise.
I disagree that dividing the country is the solution. I've read several essays advocating for that. But I could see regional economies and educational systems develop to intermediate the federal/state dynamic.
I agree with you that a constitutional convention would be a good move. Then, democratic discourse can start the process of shared decision-making to say yea or nay to your idea.
Without such a conversation as a foundation, the violence you predict as possible becomes more probable.
Thanks for this thoughtful piece. It's taken me a while to realize that a lot of our conflicts arise from the intersection of two legitimate claims. The wrong way is to demonize the other side and ignore their concerns; the right way is to try to listen with humility and not find where they are wrong and you are right. (Easier said than done.)
From a life-long democrat, once considered myself a liberal/progressive but now I’m a moderate, thank you for this thoughtful approach to politics today. I live in Massachusetts where if you say one small thing that might oppose the progressive line, you’re handed your hat and asked to leave. However, it is changing. Slowly, the moderates are creeping out of the closet and starting to voice their opinions again, less afraid of being shunned or cancelled. I look forward to the day when nuance, respect for another’s differing opinion, critical thinking, and compassion are the pointers we follow.
Greg, so great to hear your voice adding a more integrally minded perspective into the conversation. While it may be true that there is no common ground to be found between the extremes, there is indeed higher ground above and beyond them. A place where basic human dignity, of both oneself and others, is a given, and the question is not "How can we all agree?" but instead "How can we find ways to constructively live together in spite of our disagreements?"
Beautifully put, David. Yes, a higher ground that transcends the extremes while including their humanity. Living together despite our disagreements is one of the keys to democratic discourse. That's why, as you well know considering the theme next to your name, wholeness not unity per se, is essential. Philosopher Danielle Allen speaks of wholeness in her work: https://traditiononline.org/the-best-talking-to-strangers/
Thanks for the wholeness link above here, Greg, I appreciate it.
I too love Murray's Omni-American framework as one such way preserve the upsides across the individual and collective polarity in play here. Some concepts I've been tinkering with in an attempt to aim towards that higher ground include "Wholeness, not Uniformity," as a way to feature the core need for individual differentiation, and "Cosmopolitan, not Multi-cultural" as a way to feature the core need for a larger wholeness.
What other Both/And frames do you find to be particularly helpful in your conversations these days?
I like your article but I don’t agree with you on the extremists representing a small minority of both sides. I voted for Obama twice and voted Democrat about 85% of my 69 years young life but walked away from the Democrat Party after Obama began to support BLM and the anti-White DEI deceit and their false narratives against police, our criminal justice system, and America 🇺🇸 as all “systematically” racist. For 13 years I’ve watched the Democrat Party embrace the most radical elements of their Party; from defunding and demonizing the police, an all out assault on free speech, a vicious cancel culture, vicious anti white racism, divisive identity politics, misguided trans insanity at so many levels, as radical Party as I’ve ever seen. To be certain there is no equivalency between the two Parties. Not even close! Nevertheless I enjoyed your article.
As a former President once said, I feel your pain, James. Seems that the Democratic Party left you rather than vice versa.
At the same time, I know principled conservatives who barely recognize what the Republican Party has become.
Go figure.
Great post!
I wrote something about this myself recently, on why utterly insane people on both the left and right seem to hold all the power.
https://questioner.substack.com/p/the-advantages-of-insanity
Good piece. I especially like your point about folks who take our position being too "nice." In this rough-and-tumble world, we've got to be willing to forcefully repudiate those extremes and, once in power, engage in what we call "antagonistic cooperation."
Right on..
Great article.
Meaningless conclusion. Your conclusion is based on your view of the "right" way to think: "The journey toward such wisdom requires the cultural skill to facilitate deep democratic conversations across worldview codes, from indigenous and traditional to modern and postmodern."
The challenge is that everyone views they are "right". Even the words "truth" and "facts" no longer mean the same thing to everyone.
Those in the religious right view "truth" as something that their god tells them. Either through a personal relationship, their clergy, or their personal interpretation of their "scripture". Trump and Kelly Ann Conway undermine what the word "facts" means. Kelly Ann made this especially apparent with the phrase "alternative facts".
Those on the extreme left focus on ideology over "truth" or "facts". A trans woman is a woman no if and or buts. Sexuality at birth is meaningless. "White people" are racists. Especially when they deny they are racist. The US is a colonizer. It is the reason all minorities are not as successful as white men. Israel/Zionists is are colonizer and guilty of genocide in Gaza. I could go on.
It's natural for people to align with their "tribe". That is the basis of the "human condition". No high minded concept of "deep democratic conservations across worldview blah blah blah" will change that.
Culture defines government. Government does not create culture. The US is the most culturally diverse country in the world and that has ever existed. The US was founded based on protestant Christian culture. That culture dominated (e.g. at 80% levels) well into the 21st century. It's eroding quickly. I'm thinking it's at best 50% today and likely less.
We cannot have the strong federal government we have when cultures are so diverse. I'm not a fan of Trump but he's got one thing right, power needs to move to the states. Letting states decide on abortion is the right answer. But the real source of power in the federal government is the 16th amendment. "Follow the money" as the saying goes. Less than 600 people control the biggest pot of money that has ever existed. And they have the power to make it bigger. Trump uses the federal $ as a weapon against states, universities, organizations, etc that he disagrees with. So does congress.
At some point, either peacefully or through violence, the 16th amendment needs to be overturned and taxation needs to be move back to the states and maybe communities. States can fund programs in the federal government that are universally agreed to. The Military, the $ and international relations are my guess as to the common ground.
I get that you would rather "talk this out" to make sure we peacefully come to an answer. I don't see that happening. I see states eventually just deciding they're done being threaten with cutoff of funds by the federal government that is controlled by the other party. They will edict that they will not support their residents being taxed with no control on how the money gets back to them. Ideally all states will jump on board and agree to a constitutional convention that radically reduces the power of the federal government as the founders originally intended. But it could come to violence like in the civil war or even more recently the Black Lives Matter protests and Jan 6.
Bottom line, the first step is to acknowledge reality. High minded ideals are not reality.
Democratic conversations occur in everyday life, not just in politics or government. Yes, it's natural for people to align with their tribe. In 2025, many Americans will have more than one "tribe" that they identify with. And fortunately, it's possible to cultivate the skills to communicate across and within tribal categories. Further, one can be rooted, tribal, local, and worldly and cosmopolitan at the same time.
I'm a Black American--that's my ethnocultural tribe, so to speak. I'm an American, writ large, my national identity. There are some diasporic affinities, too, across the Atlantic. One's identity, these days, can cross into many zones and categories.
If we can't find a way to relate to and communicate with each other through our differences, we're doomed. My essay urges those in the exhausted middle to speak up and stand up, and have the courage to be less tribal.
I understand your goal.
Let's peacefully talk this out.
The history of the human condition is not on your side on that happening.
Even the UN is losing its creditability because of its need to make judgements.
It's interesting to note that the UN is not the organization that anyone goes to to "peaceful talk this out". The Trump plan for Gaza and Israel being the latest example. Countries go to the UN to engage in a war of words with other countries and try and build coalitions. The ICJ being the worst example.
I propose a very peace and logical solution to the divide in the country. Do you believe that solution will happen by "just peacefully talking it through?"
I agree: let's peacefully talk this out.
That's a necessary step. Is it sufficient to solve all problems? Of course not. But it's a necessary initial step, followed by action, political and otherwise.
I disagree that dividing the country is the solution. I've read several essays advocating for that. But I could see regional economies and educational systems develop to intermediate the federal/state dynamic.
I agree with you that a constitutional convention would be a good move. Then, democratic discourse can start the process of shared decision-making to say yea or nay to your idea.
Without such a conversation as a foundation, the violence you predict as possible becomes more probable.
Thanks Greg! A very important topic! Well written
Great piece and hope more will follow the message. Love the Jazz angle......