February, 2017
It was seven years ago, February of 2017. Donald Trump had only been President for a month. And I was just beginning my “journey” into writing political (and other) essays; trying to explain what I saw as the betrayal of the “American Promise”. That was one thousand, six hundred and seventy essays ago, about one every other day.
I still don’t think I’ve adequately described the schism that has only grown worse from Trump into the Biden Administration. That’s despite the fact our current President, a politician of the “middle”: is still able to work “across the aisle”. The problem now, the aisle is more like Trump’s “Wall”, and crossing is no longer an act of grace. It’s more like an act of betrayal.
In one of those early essays, I tried to describe the support for Trump in terms of an old television show, Trump World and the Beaver. I explained America’s schism as the future coming too fast, and the desire of some to “go back”. For those of us who thought the “future” looked good; the pain of Hillary’s loss, and the outrage at Trump’s victory, was still fresh. We were just beginning to find how to “resist” what Trump could do. I completed that essay with the following paragraph:
As one of her final acts of the Presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton and her staff wore purple to symbolize a uniting of America. As the “resistance” movement moves forward, we should not be secure in a 2.8 million vote majority. We need to find ways to assuage the concerns of those who feel left behind by the rapid pace of change.
Colors
Well, that didn’t happen. There’s been little “assuaging” in the past seven years, just a deepening of the divide. It’s easy now to fall into the argument that, “I’m right, you’re wrong, and that’s it”. But that doesn’t work. I’ve never convinced someone to change simply by saying “you’re wrong”. It just sets their position in stone, cemented in by the “facts” they believe, and inability of either side to see the other “view”. It’s like arguing about color; if you see purple, and I see blue, no amount of persuasion will change your mind, or mine.
And we are now in a black and white world, with little room for shades of gray.
Our National schism is like the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland. As my mother would say of the Irish flag, “Orange for the Protestants, Green for the Catholics, and White for the peace that shall never come between”. And if that analogy seem extreme, so is our current divide.
Origin Story
I’ve said this a lot: we have a Nation with two different sets of facts, even two different histories. Here’s some examples.
There is a national “origin-story” that the United States was founded by Christian men using Christian doctrine. You hear it often. But the Founding Fathers were much more nuanced than that. Jefferson, the white man (and enslaver) who wrote “…All Men are created equal…endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” didn’t see the “Creator” in any sort of Christian sense. He was Deist, who saw the Creator as setting the world in motion, then stepping back and letting it move on.
And the authors of the Constitution were well aware that the colonies were founded in part as a refuge for religious freedom. The Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, the Catholics in Maryland; all came to escape religious persecution. It was so important that the First clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution stated: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment religion or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” There was no “exception” for the Christian church.
Foundation
Even Francis Bellamy, the author of the Pledge of Allegiance and a minster’s son, did NOT include a Creator in his pledge in 1892. It wasn’t until 1954 that “Under God” was inserted – to contrast the United States to the “godless” Communists. But stating those “facts” of our Founding, is now controversial. Like the origin story of some superhero, the “facts” get altered to fit a current narrative of Christian Nationalism.
The revelations of the “1619 Project” weren’t new. But the New York Times essays put the reality of a Nation, founded in part, on enslaved labor, out front. Those facts flew in the face of the “origin story” the Americans learned from textbooks that, up until the 1970’s, mentioned only Harriet Tubman, Booker T Washington and George Washington Carver as “significant” people of color. But instead of recognizing our “real” history, many states, including Ohio, moved to “strike” the 1619 project. It raised far too many questions, altered too many perspectives. It was too “dangerous” to talk about in public schools.
Only the Choir
But the most recent example, and the most polarizing event, was the American response to the Covid 19 pandemic. What should have been a simple, unanimous scientific response, devolved into a wildly divisive political issue. Somehow, masks and vaccinations became “Democrat”, and anti-vaxx, anti-mask became “MAGA-Republican”. How did we allow a national emergency, something that should have bound us together in common interest, to become the most divisive issue of our time? And how many needlessly died because of our divided response?
When I started writing these essays, I believed that somehow I could, in a small way, reach across the barrier. Now, I know that’s not possible. All I can do is “preach” to the choir. There’s not many others in the “congregation”, left open to the message, or conversion. We are a Nation going forward, divided, with a large minority who will, (to paraphrase Hamilton, The Musical), never be satisfied.
