How Can We “Live as One” Nation Under God?
Our less-than-perfect pursuit towards a more perfect union.
I am writing this as an American citizen on a chilly pre-dawn Thursday, 5th of November 2020: 48 hours after the beginning of what many call “the most consequential election of our time.” As of this morning, there is no declared winner of the White House. It might happen today. Or it might take longer … much, much longer.
What does it mean to “live as one”?
We all wish everyone else saw the world from our particular point of view. That’s why we are so quick to have a heated debate with others on Facebook. We want to convince others of the rightness of our cause, of the rightness of our beliefs, and of the rightness of our actions. We struggle to entertain — and in many cases even tolerate — others’ incompatible causes, beliefs and actions.
This is a human oddity that cannot be sufficiently deciphered here. If we were to tackle this “quirk” in this essay, we would regrettably lose sight of our main point (to “live as one”) and find ourselves chasing rabbits this way and that never knowing where we’re headed or what we’re trying to accomplish.
To a person, we quietly wish the world did live as one. John Lennon sang about it after surviving the turbulent 1960s in his achingly beautiful and controversial song Imagine. We hear it from our garden-variety politicians seeking statesmanship status in their stump speeches. We hear it weaved into the intimate conversations in our own homes and in our coffee shops. We want to “live as one” badly. Why we don’t is one of the most stupefying insults to being human we have to bear.
Does the phrase “live as one” require us to be in full agreement with each other on all issues and beliefs of the day? Or can we live as one and still hold to disparate opinions, beliefs, even actions? In my experience, I’m not sure it is possible for any group of people to “live as one” under the pretext of full agreement. I think it’s even difficult for an individual life to do so. I disagree with myself routinely from one day to the next. The Steve of Tuesday regularly contradicts the Steve of Friday.
What we most commonly see is the will of one person to persuade (and even sometimes subjugate through force) the will of another to accomplish the task of sharing one world view with others. Social media has become our battleground to influence and argue towards unity with dubious results. Even my writing this article is an awkward attempt to persuade you to agree with my point of view. The irony is not lost on me.
We see this “will to power” collectively in the formation and actions of crowds/mobs and political parties, like Elias Canetti describes in his book Crowds and Power. We feel this “will to power” personally in abusive relationships and between coworkers in our workplaces. We see it in our churches, our political organizations, and our homeowners’ associations. Our hunger to “live as one” lies deep within us — so much so we are willing to hurt, even destroy, others to achieve our end. Wars are our shame-filled cases in point.
We argue that our rage and violence to achieve unity is justified in pursuit of our higher good when, in fact, our rage invariably destroys the very objectives we say we are pursuing. Yet we wrap our will to power in righteous indignation and try to convince ourselves that our end will justify our means. We are left disappointed and defeated.
But I don’t think we have to go there. We can “live as one” if we buckle our passions to first principles: what unity really means, what is its highest value, and how it can be embraced to better all lives.
Our great divide: progressives v. conservatives
Some say our divide is between “liberals and traditionalists.” Some call the divide “left-wing vs. right-wing.” Some label the divide as “Republicans vs. Democrats.” I personally don’t like any of those bi-polar descriptives because I don’t think they are precise enough — nor useful enough — for our conversation. There are as many definitions of what it means to be a “Republican” or a “Democrat” as there are republicans and democrats. Left-wing and right-wing is on the whole unhelpful. And the differences between liberals and traditionalists is on a sliding scale: differences of degree and not necessarily differences in kind.
I believe a better frame for our discussion is “progressive” verses “conservative.” The reason being is in the definition of the terms themselves. “Progressives” want society to change, to move forward — to progress — that the world is not as it should be and we should strive to make it better. “Conservatives” want to protect society’s most important assets rising from our past as we move into uncharted waters into the future. That’s why those who are having a tough time in life tend to lean more progressive while those who are doing well tend to lean more conservative. It also explains why younger people tend to be more progressive as they begin their adult lives (they are changing rapidly themselves and their newly minted independence necessitates a future of change) and people as they age tend to migrate more to conservative opinions (not wanting to lose the very things that got them to where they are in the first place like family values, community norms, hard work, personal responsibility, etc.
It’s a fascinating world looking through the lens of the progressive and the conservative with equal interest, empathy and care. Both are right in their points of view. And both, when insulated from the other, are also wrong. If we can understand the “rightness” and “wrongness” of both views more fully, maybe there’s hope we can “live as one.”
Progressives must become better conservatives
Progressives’ most earnest concern is making tomorrow better than today. They see the imperfections of today and want to right the wrongs. They are dissatisfied with the world as it currently exists. They want to push society forward in advancing the better things of our culture and eliminating the harmful.
If you think deeply on the progressive’s worldview, you see that the progressive as holding on to ideals of what is best and right for the world. They want to make changes that move us closer to those ideals. Some progressives want to make the change in slow, measured ways (think Tom Hayden in the 1968 Vietnam War protests) while other progressives desire to make changes quickly and abruptly, not willing to allow injustices and social ills to exist for one moment longer (think Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin in those same protests).
The ideals many progressives want to advance are simple: everyone deserves a shot at a better life, all should take better care of each other (especially those among us who are most at risk, or vulnerable), and we should protect each others’ personal rights and freedoms.
Progressives need to re-see the ideas they are wanting to advance as an attempt to protect (or shall I say “conserve”?) them in the face of a current, imperfect reality.
Conservatives must become better progressives
Conservatives’ most earnest concern is protecting what we have that has made us great all along. They see the imperfections of today and want to make sure they don’t spiral out of control. They are dissatisfied with the world as it currently exists. They want to protect the good things in our culture while rooting out the bad.
If you think deeply on the conservative’s worldview, you see the conservative as holding on to ideals of what is best and right for the world and they want to make sure we don’t lose grip of those ideals.
The ideals many conservatives want to advance are equally simple: everyone deserves a shot at a better life, all should take better care of each other (especially those among us who are most at risk, or vulnerable), and we should protect each others’ personal rights and freedoms.
Conservatives need to re-see the ideas they are wanting to protect as an attempt to advance (or shall I say “progress”?) their ideas in the face of a current, imperfect reality.
Next steps for all of us
Progressives need conservatives. And conservatives need progressives. It is a healthy tension that is needed to make sure that what we hold on to what is worth holding onto while we pursue what is worth pursuing. They both make each other better.
So why does the conservative take positions against big government, rebel against high taxes, and resist governmental regulations? It’s because they are fighting for the ideals that everyone deserves a shot at a better life, that we should take better care of each other (especially those among us who are most at risk, or vulnerable), and that we should protect each others’ personal rights and freedoms.
The conservative becomes a better conservative when he understands that his conservatism is strongest when it is in the pursuit of first principles. If the conservative only pursues protecting the past, he will betray his first principles and not help solve the injustices and inequities of our current reality. Conservatism can never carry the entire burden of virtue on its own.
And why does the progressive take positions for government protections, are willing to contribute through higher taxes (if it leads to solving real issues), and welcomes government participation when it promotes the common good? It’s because they are fighting for the ideals that everyone deserves a shot at a better life, that we should take better care of each other (especially those among us who are most at risk, or vulnerable), and that we should protect each others’ personal rights and freedoms.
The progressive becomes a better progressive when he understands that his progressivism is strongest when it is in the protection of first principles. If the progressive only pursues pursuing the future, he will betray his first principles and not help solve the injustices and inequities of our current reality. Progressivism can never carry the entire burden of virtue on its own.
As progressives and conservatives, we must stay focused and true to our shared first principles. And regularly remind ourselves how closely progressives and conservatives are aligned on our common view of the ultimate good.
The progressive needs the conservative. And the conservative needs the progressive. Like a left hand and a right hand, we can better grasp our first principles on which we all agree. So, maybe left-wing/right-wing is a good frame to demonstrate our codependency — but not in terms of differences but as in complements who are woefully inadequate without the other.
Progressives and conservatives are definitely different. And the devil will always lurk in the details. But we’re also definitely better together. Let the progressive and the conservative squabble from time to time on the “hows” but remaining fully committed to the shared “whys”. Sometimes, we will struggle to accommodate each other along the way. But let’s also respect each other deeply and the roles we both play in forming a more perfect union. No, we won’t ever be “fully one” (nor should we) — but we sure can “live as one.”
