Restoring E Pluribus Unum

In his farewell address, President George Washington, America’s first and greatest statesman, warned about a danger he thought threatened the American experiment, something he called a “party spirit.” Washington’s fear was that division and tribalism would lead to despotism. It might be in the form of a tyranny of anarchy and warring tribes, or it might lead to authoritarian strongmen taking advantage of social chaos and running roughshod over our freedoms.

Imagine if the first president could visit America today. He would likely be impressed with our innovation, with the progress we have made toward living out that “All men are created equal,” and our strength in defeating fascism and communism in the twentieth century. But we have to be honest: his warnings about “the party spirit” are as prescient today as they were at the dawn of the country he helped create.

State of Disunion

The twenty-first century has not been kind to the idea of “E pluribus unum.” There is a lingering sentiment in the country that we do not just disagree but that two different countries, two different worlds, exist in America. I have not forgotten one study from several years ago that revealed that one in five Americans who identify with one of the major political parties believes that members of the opposing party “lack the traits to be considered fully human.”[i] What is more, as divided as we are, we know we are divided. Eighty-one percent of Americans believe that we are more united than divided.[ii]

So, we know we have a problem, but, like someone suffering from an addiction, we do not quite know how to quit. What is worse, in this digital age, we are incentivized to create division. The big social media platforms work the algorithms to gin up the most inflammatory content. Media moguls on all sides of our debates stoke the fires of division in order to make money. Partisans understand that if they ratchet up their rhetoric, the will be rewarded with more clicks, more followers, and more revenue. Dave Zahl was right when he wrote, “Whatever your conviction or interest, no matter how fringe or toxic, a community exists online that will reinforce it. A few clicks are all it takes to find allies who will confirm the righteousness of your opinions, as well as common enemies to fortify your tribe. It is intoxicating, radicalizing.”[iii]

So, what can be done?

Civil War or Civility?

A couple of years ago, I was speaking at an event at Gettysburg College, located just a couple of miles from the historic Civil War battlefield. Ironically, I was at an event designed to bring people together across partisan lines. I had been to Gettysburg before; as an amateur historian, I had even dragged my kids to that “hallowed ground” in Pennsylvania. But this time, I was overwhelmed by the sadness of the place.

I will be honest with you. I am glad the North won that battle, and I am proud of the volunteer regiment from my home state of Illinois for firing the first shot. I shudder to think what would have happened if the Confederacy had prevailed there. That stunning blow would have set back the Union effort and might have cost Abraham Lincoln reelection. It is very likely that the United States might never have been reconciled, slavery might still exist in some form, and we would be a balkanized series of small, warring countries.

Yet it is hard to walk the trails and see the monuments to young boys on both sides—all Americans—who fought each other to the death at Gettysburg. To see, for instance, the wheat field where, after fierce fighting, four thousand bodies were piled high and blood stained the rivers. Brother against brother for the soul of the nation.

This image burns in my brain as I hear partisans on both sides warn of a “coming civil war,” some of them almost giddy at the prospect of a national cleavage and a bloody internal conflict. What I wish they could understand is that civil war is not something you watch on the History Channel after driving through Starbucks. Civil war means that your town is ransacked, your family is dead, and you are struggling to survive. Civil war means unnecessary bloodshed, death, and carnage. It means families split apart and communities permanently ravaged.

In addressing the tears in the fabric of American society, we should not yield to cynicism and despair but instead should work to strengthen our civic virtue. We can first do this, I believe, by turning away from the temptation to demonize our political adversaries and working, with what little influence we have, toward common ground with our neighbors.

The Way Forward

As Christians, we are compelled to see our neighbors—even those who most vociferously disagree with us—not as garbage or trash. We should resist this kind of dehumanizing rhetoric because it tears at the fragile unity of our country. I will not deny that the Left has been at war against Christianity for decades now. The anti-family and anti-Christian policies I often speak against have been devastating for human flourishing. Are you acting from concern for the truth or merely venting your spleen? Are you angry that God’s reputation is being dishonored, or do you just want to win an argument to gain the admiration of strangers?

Consider Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who while awaiting execution for opposing Hitler’s Nazi regime, wrote this: “Because spiritual love does not desire, but rather serves, it loves an enemy as a brother. It originates neither in the brother nor in the enemy but in Christ and his Word. Human love can never understand spiritual love, for spiritual love is from above; it is something completely strange, new, and incomprehensible to all earthly love.”[iv]

Some people see this kind of love as a sign of moral weakness and the unwillingness to hurl invective at the other side all day long as being soft or, as the extremely online cohort says, “beta.” But the Christian Gospel describes the world differently, empowering faithful Christians to have so much confidence in our positions that we do not have to resort to worldly means to accomplish our goals.

Public engagement today will require both boldness and the willingness to make arguments that persuade, rather than simply scoring cheap partisan points with folks who already agree with us. This kind of civility does not mean that we should stand down when it comes to bad policies and bad actors. Nor does it imply that we should stop fighting to elect good candidates and hold them accountable. What it does mean is that in order to preserve the country we love—to keep this republic—we will have to learn to live side by side with people who radically disagree with us. We have to share the country with them. Our liberty and freedom depend on it.