RED V. BLUE AS I SEE IT

I think this; you think that.  She sees this; he sees that.  They believe this; but you believe that.  We think, see, and believe in such contradictory manners that our country seems to be severely fractured along cultural, political, and religious lines.  What accounts for such conflicting opinions among people with seemingly similar backgrounds and educational levels?  Nature, nurturing, and experience seem to share a role in how we establish our opinions as adults. 

Someone raised in a family with strongly held beliefs, liberal or conservative, is more likely than not to share those beliefs as an adult.

Then there is our DNA.  We are born with certain basic “mind sets” or psychological profiles that play a role in determining our worldview.  Introversion and extroversion are probably the most well known examples of this.  (And there are many more?)  I would like to propose two polar mindsets that are at work here: fear and insecurity opposed by hope and trust.

These are traits buried deep within our psyche where they quietly exert their influence on us.  They are not feelings or concerns that we are consciously aware of in our daily lives, yet they determine many of our life choices.  I find it helpful to look at many of our contemporary social and political conflicts within this framework.  I have listed in separate categories, but they all share these fundamental differences.

Absolute v Contradiction & Relativity

Fear and insecurity can be relieved by beliefs in absolute, infallible truths that cannot and should not be questioned.  They provide the comfort and security of a foundation that erases conflict, doubt, and contradiction.  The appropriate authority provides the answers to any question.  The authority can be a father, a man of the cloth, a sacred text, or a political prescription that points the way.

This is in contrast to those who are suspicious of authority and continually question it’s edicts.  They prefer to explore endless options in an attempt to gain insight and understanding.  They see gray instead of black and white, and are more likely to recognize nuances that preclude simple answers.

Simplicity v complexity

Some see the answer to current social and economic problems in very simple terms, and have no need to get involved in issues and notions that only complicate matters. 

Opposing them are those that want to expand the search for answers to questions they believe demand more than a simplistic response.  As is so often the case, each extreme shares part of the truth, but sadly they cannot see it, or they refuse to see it. 

The individual v Community

Here the virtues and desires of the rugged individual come face to face with the need to coexist with a growing and diverse community.  Our liberties as individuals, more than ever before, have to be weighed against our responsibilities to the community and the common good.  The 21^st century bears little resemblance to its predecessors, and some of the liberties of the frontiersman are no longer practical today.  This polarization can be seen in conflicting views of the roles of government and major corporations, states rights, and how the Supreme Court interprets the constitution.

The Past v the Future

History offers us facts, describing events, recording dates, and documenting people and cultures.  It also provides us with fodder for myths, and the opportunity to remember times that were never quite like we remember them.  The “good old days” were not so good for some, and outright bad of others.  Whatever was in the past was in a country and society that no longer exists.  There are valuable lessons to be learned from history, but some feel more attention should focused on what lies ahead.  The world is rapidly changing; bringing us problems we have never faced before, problems that past experience alone cannot resolve.  America in the 21^st century bears little resemblance to 18^th century America. Change can be frightening.  There is comfort and security in the familiar, even if the familiar is associated with some unpleasantness.   For some, it is easier to deal with the known than face the unknown.  To be open to change, and to embrace new ideas and new ways of interpreting the world, requires trust and confidence, and a willingness to take risks.  It leans heavily on a strong sense of hope and optimism.

I have described these traits in a broad and general manner to make a point.  In fact they are not so clearly defined, and many individuals share some from both ends of the pole.  And I make no judgment regarding them.  My point, no, my passion, is the need for us to see the middle and to be willing to listen to one another and be willing to compromise.  We cannot succeed as a democracy without it.