In a July 2019 Pew Research poll, 64 percent of Americans agreed that "trust in each other" has been shrinking, and 70 percent said this low trust "makes it harder to solve problems." Nearly two-thirds (62 percent) agreed that "the ability of Democrats and Republicans to work together" is a "very big problem." So what are both parties doing as we approach the 2020 campaign season? Sowing distrust of “them.” Winning will not unify Americans as long as the price is furious "losers." American politics is in an addictive cycle, returning to the same self-destructive behavior.
An intriguing approach to this addiction was suggested in a 2008 research paper by anthropologist Scott Atran and political scientist Robert Axelrod. Reframing Sacred Values argues that each of us holds some moral beliefs so strongly that they are, in the authors' formulation, "absolute and inviolable." Think pro-life and pro-choice. Bound up with our identity, we cling to these values regardless of the consequences. This allegiance, they argue, will not yield to traditional, transactional incentives, such as promises of money, policy changes, and new programs. Indeed, attempts to "buy out" sacred values are met with anger and disgust: losing is better than "selling out." Political leaders know this and appeal to followers as protectors of their sacred values against "them."
There are strategies, Atran and Axelrod maintain, for bridging divides anchored in sacred values. While their examples come mostly from international affairs, their approaches apply more broadly. One is showing respect for the other side's core values rather than denigrating them. Respect does not mean giving up one's own sacred values. It just signals understanding and a willingness to search for common ground. As an example they wrote in 2008, "If France allowed Muslin students to wear headscarves in public schools, beneficial effects could reverberate throughout the Muslim world."
Another strategy is a symbolic concession, such as an apology for past actions that violated sacred values, though the apology must be sincere. Again, they cite an historical example. In 1951, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer apologized to the world Jewish community for Nazi atrocities. This enabled the start of reconciliation with Israel.
A third approach: use a shared core value to encourage the other side to see you differently. As Atran and Axelrod note, the immediate and unscheduled aid to tsunami victims in Indonesia in early 2005 "may represent the only event since the invasion of Iraq that dramatically increased favorable opinion of the U.S. in a major Muslim country."
In assuming the presidency in 1974, Gerald Ford sought to heal the nation amidst the divisions of Watergate. He reminded Americans that God "ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy." He asked them to pray for Richard Nixon. This illustrates another strategy Atron and Axelrod suggest: elevating one sacred value (mercy) above another (justice). Two weeks later, he spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and expanded his call for mercy to 50,000 deserters and draft evaders who had fled to Canada. He proposed "earned reentry."
Asked later why he chose this tough audience, Ford replied: "It would have been . . . cowardice, you know, if we'd picked some audience that would have been ecstatic." This suggests that bridging the “us vs. them” gap requires moral courage. Lincoln displayed it at the end of the Civil War when, in his Second Inaugural, he asked for “malice toward none, with charity for all.” Writing to a friend shortly after his speech he admitted that what he said was “not immediately popular” but then added: “it was a truth which I thought needed to be told.”
Politicians with moral courage and an understanding of sacred values will find ways to bridge the divide between “us” and “them.” Democrats, for example, could demonstrate more support of faith-based ways to shape character and communities. Republicans could show support for efforts to build bridges across ethnic and racial differences. Democrats could acknowledge the importance of gun ownership for sport and protection and that they will never remove guns from citizens who have them lawfully; Republicans could admit that some limits on that right are essential for public safety. Republicans could visit the inner cities of “blue” America and Democrats the rural countryside of “red” America, in each case listening to peoples' stories and applauding their struggle for decent jobs, maintaining their distinctive culture, and living enriching lives.
In 1977, as Atran and Axelrod relate, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a sworn enemy, and spoke to the Israeli Knesset. By 1979, he and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin signed a peace accord. Both men took a risk. Both countries gained immeasurably. One wonders what might happen if a Republican presidential candidate spoke with feeling and understanding to the NAACP or Planned Parenthood - and if a Democratic candidate spoke in similar terms to the NRA or the Family Research Council. Failure to try just delays the reconciliation so critical for America.
Photo Credit: Cytonn-photography-unsplash.com
