What is the hardest position to support politically? No, it’s not conservatism or liberalism. The hardest place to stand is upon the middle ground.

Indeed, throughout history, moderate voices face the wrath of people on both ends of the spectrum who treat them as the opposing extreme, when in reality they are truly neither.

Take Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He may not have been a perfect moderate (in reality, no one is), but his opinion about ethnic groups within the Austria-Hungary empire in the early 20th century was to encourage greater autonomy. He cautioned that a harsh treatment of Serbia would bring the country into conflict with Russia, to the ruin of both.

This warning was tragically upheld when, on June 28, 1914, the Archduke was assassinated in Serbia by a group (characterized as a revolutionary or terrorist group, depending on who you learn of it from) called the Black Hand. Thus was the spark of the most horrific conflict the world had experienced to that point: World War I.

Today, it’s common to find this same mentality, which has echoed through history, reflected in media. A quick peek at Twitter is enough to inform the casual bystander of the extent to which this is true. A study by Pew Research Center revealed that about half of both Republicans and Democrats say the other party makes them feel scared, angry and frustrated. For members with high political engagement, those numbers jump to 60-70 percent. Families bicker, friendships end and strangers stereotype one another based on political party.

Calls to action 

From where I stand, it’s mostly just disappointing to feel like people lose a great deal of their empathy so quickly. If everyone took time to understand where “the other side” was coming from, perhaps we could foster a sense of community in our nation that conspicuously evaporates at least every two years in November.

Some may dismiss being a moderate voice as being wishy-washy about issues that require hard solutions. However, for the purposes of this discussion, it is more accurate to see moderation as a way to understand those who we disagree with politically. Moderation in this case refers to civilly disagreeing about policy.

Disagreements are OK — in fact, I would call them necessary to a market of ideas that yields the best ways to govern our society. But they don’t have to tear our communities apart.

So how can we promote a free and civil marketplace of ideas?

Firstly, we have to understand that someone’s political beliefs are not their only measure. There are genuinely good people doing what they believe is best for the nation on both sides. There are also the unscrupulous on both sides. It seems that Americans fall under the false assumption that political worldview is a completely valid way to judge a person rather than based on their actions.

My first call to action, then, is the next time you encounter someone with an opposing view, take a step back and objectively try to find redeeming qualities of that person. If it is a challenge taken sincerely, with the assumption that people will have those qualities rather than the inverse, it’s likely to yield greater understanding. Families need not be torn apart by policy if they respect the redeeming qualities of one another and avoid conflating conflicting understandings with one’s character.

Grow respect

Next, hold your own “side” accountable. A fifth-grade teacher I know tells me that at times, her students will justify continuing to be disrespectful to one another because “they started it.” United States politics have taken much of the same flavor.

We disparage individuals whose conduct is disrespectful or inflammatory, but both sides gloss over the same behavior of their fellow party members. This mentality is almost inevitably a positive feedback loop — the other party trusts you less because you’re inconsistent with dispensing judgment while simultaneously justifying their own party members from that understanding, entrenching the fallacious mentality.

So my second call to action is to stop justifying disrespect for either side. As aforementioned, political party is not a valid measure of one’s character. So chances are that someone who aligns themselves with your view of politics will not necessarily always be respectful. It’s up to you to legitimize your worldview by holding the members accountable to standards of respect.

It’s easy to look at these ideas with some measure of desperation — it’s difficult to imagine a world in which these ideas are followed at a large enough magnitude that the level of national contention is reduced. But the great thing about these calls to action is that they don’t have to be scaled up to have an impact. For each family that adopts a mentality that each member has valid reasons for believing the political ideologies they do (even when they conflict), there is one family that doesn’t dread one another’s company. For each friend group that holds each other to a standard of respect for even those they disagree with, there is a group that is truly diverse and strong.

Each of these individual relationships are what make the biggest impact on our lives, and when you commit to cultivating your spaces as civil ones, that makes a difference — for you, and for those around you who follow. It may not be popular to see the “other side” as people worthy of your respect, but it’s the stand that will make the biggest difference in sewing the tear that threatens our national fabric.

Newsletter