Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
We are a fractured nation, but there is still hope
We are a fractured nation, but there is still hope
Jul 1, 2025 12:24 AM

The Founders worried about “factionalism” ing tyranny, but thought the nation so large and scattered that it would be impossible for the “like-minded” e together for evil ends. But modern social and mass media have helped turn citizens into mobs determined to destroy their political enemies. Do we have anything mon anymore?

Read More…

It’s e monplace observation that while we are indeed a divided nation, we have been divided before and, some claim, in much worse ways.

The first part is undoubtedly true, while the second seems more debatable, and this particularly in light of a recent ing from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) at the University of Virginia that shows roughly half of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum seriously indulging fantasies of secession. Along those lines, and more disturbingly, even higher percentages of respondents viewed members of the other party as presenting a “clear and present danger” that will likely result in “personal loss or suffering.”

I’m not familiar with any polling data extant during other periods of divisional crisis, but the fact that roughly half the country would make no effort to keep the other half from seceding—indeed, would happily defenestrate them—ought to make one nervous. This nervousness intensifies when one considers that the CRP poll claims that 62% of Biden voters and 88% of Trump voters would support “a powerful leader” who would “destroy the radical and immoral currents prevailing in society today.” Those “currents” will have names and faces, making it hard to imagine how such destruction could be plished without violence.

The dissolution into factional violence, as the writers of our Constitution realized and feared, has always been one of the dangers that dog republican systems of government. Since, as Madison observed, “the seeds of dissension are sown into the nature of man,” and such sowing is a “reflection on human nature” that doesn’t admit of alteration without “liberty [being] lost in the pursuit,” our constitutional system attempts to manage and even channel disagreement in constructive ways. The extension of the sphere of politics, both demographically and geographically, would make our politics more temperate and make the formation of tyrannies that “vex and oppress” others unlikely.

One wonders what Madison would make of the age of mass and social media. plex system the Founders developed assumed that people of similar interests would be unlikely to find each other and discover their particularconception of the good that would have a greater claim on their allegiances than mitment to mongood. Not only geographic separation but the plications of munication would mean, Madison argued, that “by their number and local situation” partisans would be “unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.” The capacity to tyrannize thus dissipated, the regime could actually be maintained and stabilized by the clash peting interests. It is obvious by now that bination of hypermobility, extant settlement patterns, and the toxic media environment have rendered the constitutional system largely toothless in its ability to both guard our liberties and buttress any mitment to a mon good.

It’s difficult to imagine how mitment might be reanimated. I recently argued that our failure to produce leaders who could bridge our divides reflects our more fundamental inability to maintain a shared culture. Only by borrowing on that shared culture was Lincoln able to appeal to “the better angels of our nature” that would allow us to recognize each other as “not enemies, but friends.” A just regime, Aristotle observed, demanded a mode of civic friendship wherein individuals could, when required, sacrifice their personal goods and interests in favor of the whole. Such favoring requires an understanding of the whole and one’s place in it, as well as a love for it. Liberal regimes place an additional burden on its citizens: namely, a skepticism concerning one’s own ability to understand what is best, and a itant generosity toward an opponent’s ability to understand. Without such self-doubt and “malice toward none with charity for all,” American democracy es vicious.

Those virtues are rarely on display in our contemporary politics. Americans increasingly live separated lives wherein they have little interaction with people who disagree with them, allowing them convenient caricatures of their opponents. We selectively read media sources that confirm our biases rather than challenge them, and we live in social media echo chambers that, we are finding out, have a capacity to destroy lives and livelihoods, deepening the fear we have of one another. We have increasingly settled into blue regions and red regions. Even seemingly benign social markers indicate our divides: Tell me what someone watches on Netflix or show me how that person spent the weekend and I’ll tell you how that person voted in the last election.

The CRP study reinforces what the Pew Foundation discovered previously—namely, that it is OK for politicians to regard opponents not only as misinformed but also as anti-American and even evil. Our ideas of patriotism have devolved in troubling ways such that in the imperative to “love the whole,” we can’t agree on what that whole is, or what part it should play in the larger whole of the so-called global society, which itself has e a source of serious political division. If indeed globalization is an ineluctable force that divides America into winners and losers, that force will likely strain domestic politics to a breaking point. When Americans are taking less pride in their country than are Germans, French, or Brits—and take less pride than we used to—we might well ask what, if anything, might hold us together.

Theorists often talk about America as an experiment in liberal democracy. We are all too familiar with the weaknesses of the democratic parts: mob violence, factional dissolution, gridlock, and instability. America’s success has partly hinged on the liberal elements of the equation, and here the CRP poll gives us a something of a blueprint for moving forward. The liberal tradition has long favored the demands of practical reason over theoretical reason, and this in the context of a pluralist situation where people will often disagree about the nature of the good itself. Given such disagreement, order is maintained by mutual forbearance, an unwillingness to use the instruments of coercion that you know can be used against you in turn. Where agreement about ends can’t be achieved, individuals and parties agree to “stand down” and, in so far as it’s possible, go their separate ways. When agreement can be achieved, the involved parties have all the liberty and energy at their disposal to move forward. Liberalism requires this sort of reasonableness as regards mutually beneficial exchanges and actions.

In other words, American constitutionalism works best when it focuses neither on ultimate ends and purposes or unduly on the self’s own demands. It works best when we are engaged in practical projects that reflect shared interests. Here, as I said, the CRP report gives us reason for hope, and also a playbook that parties might want to consult. The report (see Table 1) gives evidence of high levels of agreement concerning things that are demonstrably public goods: energy systems, infrastructure, and delivery of necessities such as clean water and food. This consensus begins to break down when we get to what have long been culture war sorts of battles: family life and education.

So long as Americans can remain focused on the material well-being of households, which are properly the germ of political life, there is hope in our perilous moment. Conversely, focusing on individuals or contesting ultimate goods will exacerbate our divisions. Those who insist on either e to regret the unleashing of the forces of violence with which they flirt.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
5 takeaways from the European Union last election
Rubber Wall? Although populists have won in many countries — Salvini in Italy, Le Pen in France, Farage in the United Kingdom, Nationalists in Belgium, Law and Justice in Poland, and Orban in Hungary — everything points out that little will change in the distribution of power and in the political dynamics within the European Union. The European unification project is authoritarian, and the European Parliament is a decorative body, practically irrelevant. The Eurocrat establishment is a rubber wall, no...
Can intellectuals actually win elections?
The European Parliament in Brussels In my previous Letter from Rome, I asked whether populists have the capacity to govern, given the failings of the Italian coalition made up of left-wing and right-wing populists and their apparent disdain for ideology. In the wake of the recent elections for the European Parliament, the corollary question is whether non-populists can actually win elections. It’s a bit of a trick question, since elections are popular by nature, even if they are not always...
How to think like a Christian
Photo Credit: Michael Matheson Miller Here is a podcast interview I did recently with my friend Matt Leonard, host of The Art of Catholic and Next Level Catholic Academy. Matt and I talked about some of the foundational ideas of Christian thinking in contrast with the dominant secular way of seeing the world. As you can see from the title of Matt’s show, The Art of Catholic, this podcast is directed to a Catholic audience, but many of the ideas...
Study: How do millennial Christians approach faith, work, and calling?
Millennials recently surpassed Baby Boomers and Generation Xers to e the largest generation in the American workforce—a development that has likely led many to recall mon stereotypes about millennials as dreamy-eyed idealists or lazy, plainers. But if we look past our various cultural prejudices, what does the evidence actually indicate? If the attitudes and priorities of Generation Y are, in fact, so strikingly distinct from their counterparts, what might it tell us about the future shape of economic order? In...
Video: Cory Booker makes the case for school choice in Grand Rapids (October 2000)
Sen. Cory Booker, then a Newark city councilman, made the case for school vouchers at an Acton sponsored October 2000 event at the Wealthy Theater in Grand Rapids saying, “The cost of not doing the program is having continuing generations of kids chained to failing schools when they could be easily liberated if the parents were given the right to choose where they go with their money.” School vouchers were then a hot topic in Michigan as Michiganders were debating...
LBJ’s Great Society lives on
Forget Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton as well. And do the same regarding Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. The most consequential American president since the end of World War II was Lyndon Baines Johnson. The man — who possessed a bination of savvy, lack of character and progressive faith — created the Great Society and helped to shape the modern-day United States. Whether you like him or not, we all live under the shadow...
Robbing Pietro to pay Paolo? The zero-sum game in Italy’s welfare state
Robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is an idiomatic expression about bad – or at least disappointing – economics. Curiously, it was born within the context of the Church’s supposedly poor financial administration of its properties. While there are many sources to the origin of the idiom, there is a famous story from 17th C. England when a bishop was said to have ordered funds transferred from one old church (St. Peter’s Abbey) to another in disrepair (St. Paul’s Cathedral)....
10 facts about Theresa May’s resignation as prime minister
After surviving a no confidence vote last December, and suffering two of the largest legislative defeats in modern parliamentary history, UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced this morning that she will step down as prime minister. Barely suppressing tears, “the second female prime minister but certainly not the last” said she was leaving office “with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love.” Here are the facts you need to know: 1. Theresa...
Many Americans see religious discrimination in U.S.
Americans say some religious groups continue to be discriminated against and disadvantaged, according to recent surveys by Pew Research Center. The surveys asked Americans which of three religious groups face discrimination: Jews, Muslims, and evangelical Christians. More than three-in-four Americans (82 percent) say Muslims are subject to at least some discrimination, and a majority says Muslims are discriminated against a lot. These results have not changed since the question was asked in 2016. Roughly two-thirds of Americans (64 percent) also...
An introduction to fiscal policy
Note: This is post #124 in a weekly video series on basic economics. What is fiscal policy? As economist Tyler Cowen explains, the simple answer is that it’s a government’s policies on taxes, spending, and borrowing. But how it’s practiced is a little plicated. Fiscal policy can be used in an effort to mitigate fluctuations in the business cycle—to soften the effects of those booms and busts. (If you find the pace of the videos too slow, I’d mend watching...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved