Democrats frequently accuse Republicans of being divisive. Republicans identify divisiveness as one of the commonest Democratic vices. Both are right. Some innocents find this stymie a little depressing, It’s in the nature of obvious facts to depress. It’s human nature to prefer cheerful factoids over cheerless facts. We all prefer to live in a country at peace with itself; a country where everybody feels they share the same values and are willing to work for common goals. We don’t like divisions and the conflicts that divisions produce.
Politicians, propagandists, and partisans know this. So they find it useful to accuse their opponents of making Americans uncomfortable by divisive policies, speech, and symbols. A recent Rasmussen Report found that 14% of American Adults favor banning red MAGA caps, while 70% are opposed, and 17% haven’t made up their minds. Should be conclude that it’s the 14% who are being divisive? Or is it the people who insist of wearing those inflammatory caps that are guilty?
Closing in on broader and more serious subjects of disagreement, we see an NPR/PBS poll showing a 45% approval rating for Donald Trump, a Rasmussen Report showing 48% approval, and Reuters showing 42%. Except for the Emerson National Poll all current polling show a higher percentage of disapproving responses to approvals. Does it follow that the voters who refuse to disapprove are guilty of dividing America? And does it follow from this that the minority should agree with the majority if they want to escape being accused of divisiveness?
The Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary defines divisiveness “as tending to cause disagreements that separate people into opposing groups…something that causes great and sometimes unfriendly disagreement within a group of people.” This implies that if a disagreement is friendly it isn’t divisive. I ask readers who can find a friendly disagreement about the works and days of President Trump, to send me an example. I don’t believe that there’s any to be found, but I’m open to correction. My e-mail address can be found at the end of this column. Send me a line.
This friendliest example I am able to imagine would look like this: “Donald Trump is a boastful, narcissistic witless windbag obsessed with Donald J. Trump, who has mysteriously done some good by appointing first-class judges, cutting taxes, reducing regulations and rattling the status quo. I don’t believe anyone would find this acceptable. Devoted Trumpophiliacs would consider it annoyingly disparaging while devoted Trumpophobics would regard the list of achievements as false, infuriating propaganda.
In sum, it might be helpful to public debate if we drop the divisive accusation from our political debates. It wouldn’t make them softer and sweeter, but it would make them slightly less stupid.
Farmington and its surrounding communities have, in the aftermath of September’s explosion. Death, and suffering showed us why unanimity is so appealing. Farmington’s citizens have good reason to feel that the belong to a community united by common values and sentiments. At present we can all find encouragement from feeling that we all share a common respect for the men and women who knowingly place themselves in harm’s way for the benefit of our town, for all of us. We all share a feeling of loss. We see willing volunteers contributing to funds for supporting the injured and the work of reconstruction. If any among us reject these feelings they are mute. None of the reactions to this tragedy bear the label Republican, or Democrat, of liberal or conservative. It can’t last forever, but it should leave behind a memory which we can cherish in the future.
There is no such unanimity in national politics. A recent Politico/Morning Consul poll found the public equally divided, 43% to 43%, about impeaching President Trump. Another poll shows 88% of Democrats supporting impeachment and 93% of Republicans oppose. Check the data for intensity and we see a report that 82% of Democrats regard the impeachment process as a very serious matter while 85% of Republicans disdain it a political play-acting.
Republicans and Democrats can agree on only one thing—that members of the other party are being divisive.
Objectively, the fate of the planet is more important than the fate of Donald J. Trump, but it’s subjectively certain that the United States contains more passion hope and fear about the fate of the Trump presidency than about the fate of the Planet Earth. I know that sounds weird, but I believe it’s true. Emotional intensity is not rationed according to rational calculation.
John Frary of Farmington, the GOP candidate for U.S. Congress in 2008, is a retired history professor, an emeritus Board Member of Maine Taxpayers United, a Maine Citizen’s Coalition Board member, and publisher of FraryHomeCompanion.com. He can be reached at jfrary8070@aol.com
Send questions/comments to the editors.
