I have been pondering the flak over this past Presidential election and what the angry division stems from. I realize that labels like Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative places people in easily recognizable boxes but they don't really explain anything. They also tend to end the discussions at name calling and accusations. As I picture the US map with the red and blue labels depicting which states and counties lean which way and ponder the arguments over the electoral college, I realize something. The areas colored blue are mostly urban and red mostly more rural. There is lots of mudslinging that relates to "ignorant country folk" and "stuck-up city slickers" that has gone on for centuries. I must point out, not everybody in the cities is educated and not everybody in the country is ignorant! If we can't get past these labels, we will never understand each other or live in harmony. People who choose to live in more sparsely populated areas have their reasons for doing so, as do those who live in more crowded cities. Although those in cities may claim to have a more "advanced" civilization due to the ready access of educational institutions, art offerings, and diversity, those who live in the country have access to the wonder of nature, the education of how things work, and the peace of having neighbors who generally share the results of weather and agriculture prices. People who live in rural areas are accustomed to mostly taking care of themselves and their families with a willingness to help neighbors when needed. People who live in cities are more prone to think of the infrastructure of their environment as provided by government. They may be willing to occasionally help a neighbor but often need to be more cautious because of the likelihood of scams or criminals.
I could go on and on about the differences but I want to avoid any potential misunderstandings if someone thinks I am judging one or the other. What I want to emphasize is that there are two different ways to look at government in general. I think the founders who struggled for days on end to come to harmony enough to form a country realized these differences but managed to figure out a way to compromise enough to make it work- for over 200 years so far. There are more people in number who live in cities but more of the country is devoted to people who choose to live more spread out. Those who live in cities are more comfortable with having the government dictate rules because they see it's for the common good. Those who live in the country mainly focus on getting the job done and only looking for assistance or guidance when needed.
The whole time I lived in New York State, there were rumblings about NYC separating themselves from the rest of the state. Those in the city considered the rest of the state uncooperative and ignorant. Those in the rest of the state thought of the city as a very heavy burden with too many people looking for support from the rest of the state. The issue today in the country is an enlarged version of the same controversy. People in the country are opposed to the government controlling their lives. People in the cities feel there need to be more regulations to prevent actions that are inconsiderate or even destructive. People in the country don't want to pay more to the government to run inefficient programs. People in the city want more money from tax payers to cover the cost of programs for the "common good".
When there is a war, we tend to circle the wagons so to speak. We come together in the face of a common threat. Right now the war is within the circle. We have become enemies within the country. There are far too many people who are connected only through electronic devices when they rarely speak to their physical neighbors. Too many people spend so much time in their cars they don't have time to get to know people right around them. We have so many activities available to us that we are too busy to be involved in the "common good"- whatever government entity we should be a part of. We don't give opinions and guidance from the beginning but we're quick to squeal when the outcome of the decisions of others is not what we would have chosen.
So, what do we do? I am not nearly as God-like as I hope to be in the eternities so I don't really have answers. Maybe we should, first, recognize where the controversy comes from. We need to consider differences with respect rather than name-calling. Second, also involving respect, we need to recognize that even if someone has a different idea of how to go about building our country than we do, they are not out to destroy the country. Their idea of how to fix it is just different from our own. We can all say, "But if we do...... this will happen", when we can't ever be really sure. It's like decisions in our own families when there are some who think the outcome will be disastrous and some who think it will work fine. Third, once a decision has been made (the results of an election clear), we need to resist grumbling and looking for fault focusing instead on figuring out what we can do as an individual part of the governed body. We need to do our part to build rather than tear down. We're not dead yet and neither is the country so lets get on with it!
No comments:
Post a Comment