The Loss of Independence and the Politics of Division
History has shown us that changing which party holds power does not necessarily change the underlying behavior of those who exercise it. Policies may change, laws may change, and political fortunes certainly change. Yet the struggle for power, the hostility, and the seemingly endless cycle of retaliation remain remarkably familiar. The problem is not simply Republicans or Democrats. It is the growing absence of independent thought among the very people responsible for governing themselves.
That is why there must be independents involved in politics. Not merely candidates or voters who refuse to identify with a political party, but men and women capable of independent thought, judgment, and conviction. Our Constitution rests upon the sovereignty of the people. Its protections make possible the freedom to question authority, challenge accepted beliefs, and think independently, and self-government depends upon citizens exercising those freedoms responsibly. It is the same conviction that runs through my book one-America: a free people stays free only as long as each citizen keeps the habit of thinking for himself or herself. Yet we have developed a political culture in which loyalty to a party increasingly takes precedence over loyalty to principle.
The less independently we think, the more divided we become. The more divided we become, the more fiercely we defend our political tribes. And the more fiercely we defend those tribes, the more willing we become to excuse conduct we would condemn in our opponents. Eventually, we stop demanding the best from those who represent us and become willing to accept the worst from our own side simply to spite the other. We no longer ask whether someone is qualified, principled, or capable of governing. We ask whether they can defeat the people we have been taught to hate. And hatred is a dangerous foundation upon which to build a government. I made the case in How to Spot a Real Leader that leadership can be measured by conduct and character, and that is exactly the measure we abandon when party becomes the only test.
What concerns me most is not merely the growing division between Americans, but the gradual dehumanization of those with whom we disagree. We have begun treating political opponents not as fellow citizens with different ideas, but as enemies whose very existence threatens our own. We assign collective guilt, dismiss individual character, and reduce millions of human beings to political labels. In my work on the Tolerance Continuum, I describe hate as the sum of three parts: animosity, intolerance, and ignorance. Tribalism feeds all three at once. It hands us someone to resent, teaches us not to listen to them, and keeps us from ever learning who they really are. Accountability belongs to the individual who did the wrong, never to everyone who happens to share a label with that person. Once we convince ourselves that the other side is inherently evil, almost anything can be rationalized in the name of defeating it. That is the danger. When disagreement becomes dehumanization, the moral barriers against political violence begin to erode.
And what happens when each side believes the other is responsible for everything wrong with the nation? We begin to cannibalize ourselves. Tribalism cannibalizes itself. It consumes judgment, compassion, and cooperation until even the principles it claims to defend are gone. The more it demands loyalty, the less room it leaves for individuality, and the more it divides the nation, the less capable that nation becomes of governing itself. And so we return to the same cycle, election after election, expecting different results from a political culture that remains fundamentally unchanged.
Every consequence has a cause. Yet we have become obsessed with blaming the consequences while refusing to confront the conditions that produced them. Political extremism is not simply a problem to be defeated at the ballot box. It is also a symptom of a society increasingly willing to surrender independent judgment to collective identity. The Constitution does not belong to Republicans or Democrats. It does not belong to elected officials, political parties, or the government itself. As I wrote in The Constitution Is Not Poetry, it is a working document meant to be read, understood, and used by ordinary citizens. It belongs to the people, and those people must remain capable of exercising their own judgment, even when doing so means disagreeing with everyone around them. A government established upon the authority of the individual cannot remain faithful to that principle when those individuals surrender their independent judgment to the collective.
The remedy does not begin in Washington. It begins with each of us. It means reading past the headlines our own side prefers, judging candidates by their character and conduct rather than the letter beside their name, and holding our own leaders to the same standard we demand of our opponents. It means sitting across from someone we disagree with and seeing a neighbor rather than an enemy. Nearly a decade ago, I wrote about Dr. Bernice King’s call to build bridges rather than walls. The lesson remains the same: understanding requires us to recognize the humanity of those with whom we disagree. This is the heart of what I call Civic Realism: truth over tribe, symmetric standards always, and opponents treated as fellow citizens. None of this requires us to abandon our convictions. It requires us to own them, rather than borrow them from a party.
I hope the results of this election produce something better. I hope those entrusted with power recognize that they represent an entire nation, not merely the people who voted for them. But I see little reason to believe that exchanging one political majority for another will, by itself, change the mindset that brought us here. We cannot continue teaching one half of the nation to despise the other and expect the nation to remain whole. We cannot demand freedom while surrendering our independent thought. And we cannot preserve a government of the people while treating so many of those people as enemies.
Changing the guard is not the same as changing our direction. If we want different consequences, we must confront their causes. Stop treating the symptoms, and address the disease.
Be the first to comment