E Pluribus Plus

Some time today – if they haven't done so already – our electors will designate Donald Trump and Mike Pence as their choices for President and Vice-President of the United States. Mr. Trump will be the forty-fifth (or maybe the forty-fourth) President. The count is tricky since Grover Cleveland served twice, but his terms were separated. He was, however, only one man and Benjamin Harrison's presence did not change that fact. Apart from the variations that occur in anyone's mind from time to time, the twenty-second and the twenty-fourth chief executives had almost everything in common.

We are a nation in turmoil. It is commonly held that Mr. Trump has divided the nation. But that is not the case. Although we have managed to cover it up, we have been a divided nation for a very long time. People differ concerning the benefits of such a designation, however it cannot be denied that this is the case.

We have always been a nation that welcomed newcomers, although we sometimes favored one group over the others. To a degree that has been our undoing – the favoring, I mean. We like to think of ourselves as taking in, on equal terms, all “the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Unfortunately, however, fear, favor, and politics have played a large part in our choice of those who will share our land. And we have not hesitated to show discrimination when it served our purposes. The treatment of native Americans and of imported Africans was shameless, As were the internment camps during World War II (sixty-two percent of those confined were American citizens) and the prejudice “real Americans” have shown toward the Irish and the Italians, to Catholics, Jews, and, most recently, Muslims. We encourage class warfare by emphasizing economic and social differences.

And we have also shown favoritism. We defend it as “the American Way,” congratulating ourselves on our support of minorities, making sure that they are not “oppressed” by the majority. That, too, however, involves a large political component. By catering to particular groups some hope to get their votes. It's been going on for a long time. We praise ourselves for our openness to opinions other than our own but it's more show than generosity, – we expect the support of the others in return. And it's our way of placing burdens and blame on those we dislike.

But the worst part of such behavior is that it divides us. We celebrate “diversity” and “multicultural” values at the expense of unity. There was a time in our history when we emphasized acculturation and assimilation. People were free to keep their own heritages but it was clear that there were national values that came first. Our laws weren't always just, nor were they always justly applied, but they were our laws.

The time has come when we prefer to encourage favoritism, division, and polarization. It's been going on for years, but recent political developments have made it more obvious. And the media have contributed to the situation by emphasizing conflicts wherever they can find them. And violence sells, so that disagreements, especially big ones, get their attention.

That's where we are now. One party claims to speak for those whom they consider the disenfranchised – who need protection from the majority. They claim to represent the poor and the “middle class.” The other argues on behalf of “American Values.” They contend that too much emphasis has been placed on creating a secular American society where rules are made to satisfy the needs of each voting bloc. And they're both wrong. Their visions are very different – not like two incarnations of Cleveland divided by a Harrison, they are two completely different views of America and the divisions between them cannot be bridged.

In the most recent election the extremists of both parties – the ones who emphasized the differences between them – the issues that divide Americans – took over their parties. Both candidates were disliked, distrusted, or feared by a majority of voters. But no one spoke for the large number of citizens in the middle. Our differences had been emphasized, rather than the principles that bring us together. The election and the election process divided the country – not either candidate, although both were, in their own ways, divisive. We were left to decide between the lesser of evils – and both were evil – because we were unable to present ourselves with more reasonable – less discordant and more acceptable to all – choices. And they and their supporters emphasized the rhetoric of division. We've been so for a long time, but for the most part chose leaders who would make the system work.

Perhaps at some time in the future we'll be able to do the same again.  First we'll have to recognize our situation rather than deny it. Then we'll be able to admit that we're all to blame, rather than try to find an individual to fault.