The Divided States of America
The first time someone told me America should just split in two, I found the notion ridiculous.
But with each passing month, as I absorb the intense the divide of this country (raised to the max by a looming presidential election), this idea sounds more and more appealing.
Let’s set aside how incredibly difficult and tumultuous such an endeavor would be so we can freely embark on this thought experiment together.
I’ve also had numerous people tell me that the current intense political divide is not representative of the people, that the average American lives in the middle between these two extremes.
(Note: according to Pew, liberals make up 47% of the Democratic party compared to 38% of moderates.)
But let’s keep brainstorming here — disclaimer: I am not a political expert; I am merely a curious citizen.
So if the average American lives somewhere in the middle between Trump and Bernie, then why is it that these candidates have resonated so deeply with voters? Is it that “extremists” on both sides are the ones screaming the loudest and therefore controlling the narrative?
Keep in mind that nine in ten Americans described conflict between Democrats and Republicans as either strong or very strong, which is substantially higher than how they view conflict between rich and poor, Black and white, young and old.
Let’s consider the vice presidential debate (which is the only legitimate debate we’ve had so far). The most shocking moment for me was the disagreement over whether or not systemic racism is real. I honestly couldn’t believe that in 2020 this was still an issue up for debate.
Which brings me to question: is disagreement over a baseline issue such as the reality of systemic racism merely a political ploy or a real divide amongst the American people?
The more I engage with others’ perspectives, the more convinced I become that this isn’t simply a fringe issue.
Moving forward with the belief that a decent portion of Americans doubt the existence of systemic racism, I wonder how it is that we move forward in society:
Do I spend my time and energy trying to change people’s minds?
Do I ignore those who disagree with me and fight for a more equitable system despite them?
Or is the most pragmatic option to cut our losses and go our separate ways?
The fearmongering of the past six months has been overwhelming (to put it lightly). Socialism and fascism have been equated on either side as a threat to democracy as we know it.
And maybe this is merely a product of misinformation, sensationalism, and hyper-partisanship. But the more I dig, the wider this divide between worldviews becomes.
The progressives I know are striving for a world in which intersectionality, justice, and equity are at the forefront. The moderates I know crave compromise, stability, and to empower the middle class, while conservatives want to harken back to the supposed glory days of the 1950s or 80s.
As much as I’d like to live in a world in which all these desires could hold hands, I struggle to see how it’s possible.
Social progress cannot come without disruption, and it inherently puts people before profit. And a glorified middle class cannot exist without exclusion.
The romanticized middle that Boomers speak of can not solve the problems we’re currently grappling with (especially considering being moderate and seeking compromise led to things like the 1994 Crime Bill Act).
The “middle ground” is biased towards those who already hold privilege and power. When we attempt to gear policies towards the “middle,” this innately excludes those most disenfranchised and marginalized. This middle won’t consider the needs of a Trans disabled person or homeless indigenous youth.
Maybe it’ll make space for the white working class or the middle class single mom but even that’s up for debate.
So when people speak of the dangers of a divided America and the need for compromise, I hear them and I share their concerns. But I also don’t see how to compromise without denying justice to those who have been historically forgotten, mistreated, and disregarded.
Which is why I wonder if we’d be better off to simply call it quits on this whole United States of America thing. Because if we can’t even agree on if systemic racism is real, I struggle to see a shared path to a better country.
Reflecting on the people in my life, I do believe that most people fall close to the “middle.” And by this I mean people don’t want to worry or think about politics and are satisfied enough with their life situation that they’re not interested in radical upheaval, which is why incrementalism is so appealing. It’s essentially saying, “I want things to be better for you but not at the expense of my own comfort and privilege.”
And yet despite this resistance to “radicalism,” we live in a more socially liberal country than the one of our parents’ youth because of bold and “radical” movements, such as Civil Rights & LGBTQIA.
And this is the point that upsets me the most, that leaves me at a loss — this putting off of reckoning with injustice and oppression to another generation because we don’t want to deal with the hassle, struggle, and disruption it would cause. As though we want the end result without the work and sacrifice. Because we know it won’t easy, pretty or simple.
We are not going to even the racial playing field or save humans from environmental self-destruction through micro shifts and incremental steps.
Because whether or not an American believes in systemic racism does not negate the fact that most of us do not want to live in a racist country. And yet, the vast majority of us resist what it takes to make that desire a reality.
When racism is the foundation of this country, how can we believe that light measures can right such atrocious wrongs?
The likeliness of actually dividing as a country is obviously low, but the motivation behind the sentiment remains relevant.
Maybe it would be more appealing for me to spend my time hypothesizing what a path towards compromise would look like, but at this point in time, I don’t see compromise as the approach that’ll achieve the courageous changes being demanded of our country.
This belief is what has converted me from a rational progressive to a radical one. Because I believe we need to create space for a radical reworking of an oppressive system that’s destroying the planet. It’s the difference between reformation and transformation.
Reform will become appealing to me when I believe we’re standing on a firm foundation from which to leverage change. Change that does define whether or not someone has access to basic human rights in a country of abundant resources.
Which is not to say I don’t hold space for rational progressives, because despite my resistance to compromise, I believe inclusivity means listening to others’ ideas so long as our end-goal is the same.
And I heed the concern that purism amongst progressives can be counterproductive. I’ll be the first to express frustration towards liberals voting third-party in this election but that does not mean I view them as my opposition.
Long story short: this country is seriously broken. It’s been broken since its founding when we spoke of the glories of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” with full awareness that freedom was limited to a select group. And we’ve put politics in the position of righting hundreds of years of wrongs, and it’s failing miserably.
I have no interest in being moderate because there is no middle between grappling with systemic racism or not. The appeal to moderate change is not just steeped in privilege, it is often times the biggest hindrance to true change.
To quote Tayari Jones,
“Compromise is not valuable in its own right, and justice seldom dwells in the middle.”
For more musings, check out my page.
