The art of the possible

Jerry: In the aftermath of the Orlando tragedy Congress is, once again, warring with itself over gun control.

Carrie: I doubt they’ll do anything. Congress seems to have lost its ability to act on our country’s problems. They are paralyzed.

Jerry: I agree. Look at the Supreme Court mess. The Court is trying to function with an empty seat because the Republican controlled Senate refuses to even consider President Obama’s nominee until after the November elections.

Carrie: Here in Idaho, we have the “Bedke rule” which says no bill passes the House of Representatives unless it can be passed by a majority of the Republican legislators. They won’t even consider working with the Democrats to resolve important issues.

Jerry: How come we’re so divided? Is the party system at fault?

Carrie: We’ve had political parties for a couple of centuries. In my opinion, the problem stems from the rigidity we are now experiencing from the far right and left. They insist you adhere to certain principles or you can’t be part of their group.

Jerry: Sounds more like religion than politics. Isn’t politics “the art of the possible?” Politics succeed when different groups come together and get things done. To do so, they usually have to give up something to get something.

Carrie: A good example is the Boulder White Clouds wilderness legislation, one of the few environmental bills passed by Congress in recent history. It succeeded because people representing opposing interests came together to achieve a goal. And they did so… by each giving up something.

Jerry: You mean that dirty word “compromise?”

Carrie: Sadly, compromise has become a sin with the far right and left. For them, compromise means giving up some of their “principles.” They have sanctified political ideals into “immutable truths” in place of political values which can be debated and changed.

Jerry: I agree. We know most religions require their followers to believe in their version of absolute truth. But among religions, truths can be very different. These differences can create conflict. That’s one reason why our founding fathers separated politics from religion and created a secular Constitution. In fact, George Washington didn’t even like having political parties.

Carrie: But weren’t political parties formed so people could identify with folks who share similar values?

Jerry: Yes. But in doing so they have created labels, both for themselves and folks they disagree with.

Carrie: What’s wrong with that?

Jerry: Labels discourage thoughtful discourse. They also dehumanize people with other viewpoints.

Carrie: Why do you say that?

Jerry: For example, we love to label folks as conservative or liberal. In doing so, we immediately presume we know their position on a specific issue. We don’t take the time to listen to each other and look for common ground.

Carrie: No wonder we can’t resolve differences.

Jerry: Maybe it’s time for our political parties to recognize that they aren’t holy temples; they should be tools for making government work. Respecting differences through compromise is essential for good government.

Carrie: Somebody once said “if you make people think, they’ll hate you. But if you make people think they’re thinking, they’ll love you.” Clearly, labels do that.

Jerry: Sounds, to me, like the campaign strategy of some presidential candidates!

•••

Jerry is a retired farmer/rancher and native Idahoan. Carrie is a retired nonprofit administrator. They live in Idaho Falls.