We owe each other

We the people cannot rule if we cannot talk

Our government, as we all learned in school, is supposed to be a republic. The people alone are to rule, for the benefit of all, rather than the few. It is a privilege to live in a country that aspires to such an ideal, even if it often falls short of its aspirations.

With that privilege comes responsibility. We as citizens have to be mindful of our elected leaders, to make sure that they are doing the business of the people, rather than themselves or their cronies. We also have a responsibility to each other, citizen to citizen.

Think of it this way: In a republican government, only the people rule. But the only way for the people to rule is for them to come to a consensus on what should be done. That is the only way, in James Madison’s telling, that public opinion can become the “true sovereign” of a “free government.”

This is a weird way to think about politics, at least if your only experience with it is the nightly cacophony of the cable news shows or the vitriolic denunciations by leaders of one side against the opposition. Our attitude toward politics is more like a war of attrition: We get our way by grinding the opposition down, robbing it of its ability to resist.

But this is not how the Founding Fathers thought politics should work. Sure, they divided on party lines very quickly in the 1790s, but in the 1800s they tried to mend those wounds. They thought there was such a thing as a national interest that the people could come to agree on.

If we take this idea seriously, then it should profoundly transform how we actually do politics. We should be doing more listening and less talking. We should do less attacking straw men and more honestly trying to understand the other side on their own terms. We should try to remember, as Thomas Jefferson said, that not every difference in opinion is a difference in principle.

Democracy is basically rule by the people. And the only way for the people to rule wisely is for the judgments of public opinion to be informed, judicious and virtuous. The only way for that to happen is by what Madison called a great “intercourse of sentiments.” In other words, we have to talk to each other. And the only way we can talk with one another — or at least with people who do not already agree with us — is if we truly tolerate other views, as they are understood by the terms of those who hold them.

That is a big challenge — and it is something that I think neither side does very well these days. Liberals think they have conservatives all figured out, but oftentimes their ideas boil down to crude stereotypes bottomed on racism, misogyny and greed. Conservatives, on the other hand, often assume that the left is made up of a bunch of godless socialists. No wonder our conversations with each other so regularly devolve into shouting matches! We are too often prepared to believe the absolute worst about each other.

Such attitudes not only coarsen the civic discourse, they also diminish democratic accountability. The great twist of a democracy is that the task of governance goes on, even when the public may disagree about what to do. Somebody else is going to make decisions for us, insofar as we cannot come to an agreement among ourselves. Bureaucrats, judges, lobbyists, corporations, labor unions — they are all more than happy to fill the void that the people leave when they are undecided or divided. And all too frequently, the decisions they make run contrary to what is in the true interest of the nation.

Being a citizen of a great republic like this is a true honor. But there are also debts we must discharge, not only obedience to and watchfulness over the powers that be, but respect and decency toward our fellow citizens.