Common ground needed to ease nation’s split
Although the Trump administration hoped his State of the Union address would “unite us in patriotism,” partisanship is still alive and well. Most of us would agree that we have a uniquely polarizing president and that the country feels divided. As this sense of division spreads, it pushes us further left or right with moderates being swallowed up by the growing ideological chasm. Neo-Nazi supremacists and Antifa communists are politically appropriating the good names of Republicans and Democrats. Didn’t our country come together to fight these guys in the 1940s and ’80s, respectively? How did it come to this today?
As a Republican Millennial, I’ve been confronted with tension from my liberal counterparts since I was in college. But those days seem like the Age of Enlightenment compared with the current “you’re either with us or against us” environment.
I’ll admit that my own party is guilty, too. We have a pejorative term for Republicans who don’t strictly follow the entirety of the party’s views: RINO (Republicans in name only). I never understood this all-or-nothing approach, and believe that coming to your own views issue by issue is healthier than wholly subscribing to a dogma. Call me a BEAR (beliefs engendered around Republicanism). Yes, I lean right, but in some cases I may not agree with certain issues traditionally identified with the GOP.
As an independent-minded moderate conservative, I found President Trump’s State of the Union address largely appealing. I agree that improved employment opportunities enable poor and working-class Americans to pursue financial independence with dignity and purpose.
I agree that lowering federal regulatory burdens helps streamline everything from Food and Drug Administration approvals to starting small businesses.
I agree criminal justice reform is necessary to offer former inmates a genuine second chance at life.
I agree with making national security a priority and steadfastly supporting our armed forces, because without confidence in our personal safety — a derivative of our national security — the rights and wrongs of any social or fiscal policy dispute become moot.
But, naturally, there were sections of the State of the Union address that I found less agreeable. For instance, my husband’s family directly benefited from “chain migration” when it came to America, so I understand how changes to this policy can elicit emotional responses. However, I believe that a potential disconnect on an aspect of immigration reform does not mean we should reject reform as a whole. It’s about setting priorities, finding compromises and making choices.
Which is why, as an independentminded moderate conservative, I disagreed with the premise of Democratic Rep. Joe Kennedy’s response to the president’s speech. In an ideal world, it would be nice to “choose both.” There are times when this is possible and we owe it to ourselves to take advantage of those opportunities; many of those “false choices” the congressman rattled off fall into this favorable category. However, there are also times when compromises must be made so that the optimal outcome can be reached when the perfect one cannot.
Denouncing false choices does not change the fact that resources are finite and that many times real choices must be made. One tangible example of this can be seen in infrastructure investments. Both Republicans and Democrats share the common goal that these investments are necessary, but differ in how we should allocate resources from federal, state, local and private resources. This is complicated, but I expect my elected representatives to find a way to move forward with the intent to expand the pie so that we avoid “turning American life into a zero-sum game.” That may not be easy, but by avoiding choices, the task will prove impossible.
These are my opinions, which are largely shaped by the values instilled in my upbringing and my individual life experiences. In a country as diverse as ours, is it any wonder that others would have significantly different opinions?
If what you believe is diametrically opposed to mine, but comes from a place of thoughtfulness and hope for the betterment of our shared nation, I can respect your opinion while disagreeing with it. Bridging the gap requires open discussions grounded in mutual respect. But how can that occur while we retreat further into the fringes of our respective camps?
As a very passionate moderate, I urge other moderates (from the right and left) to find common ground, speak up and resist being drowned out by those welcoming polarization. In these divided times, I’ve found a lot of hope in an organization I help run called Experiment in Dialogue, which organizes group dinner events between strangers with differing political views. You’d be surprised at how much common ground can be found while breaking bread in a respectful setting.
It’s too much to expect one person delivering one State of the Union speech to unite us as a country. The real work falls to us, as individuals, as thoughtful accountable citizens, to take on that responsibility and collaboratively shape the state of our union.
Allison Lee Pillinger Choi is the author of “Bleeding Heart Conservatives: Why It’s Good to Be Right” (Post Hill Press, 2016). To comment, submit your letter to the editor at SFChronicle.com/letters.