Is Donald Trump a danger to the nation? Or is he a dynamic president who keeps his promises? The national debate over Trump has raged for 18 months now, and it is likely to do so as long as he is president.
But the problem with our nation is not so much the denizen of the White House. The problem is the divisiveness in our nation. Donald Trump is the kind of president the nation produces when there is a breakdown in civility, an unwillingness to hear each other out and even a fundamental hostility toward others with whom we disagree.
This divisiveness did not begin with Trump. Actually, it has been a long time coming. It emanates from the growing public reliance on partisan cable news networks that disparage differing views and model uncivil discourse.
It also is a byproduct of the separation of our society. Termed the “big sort,” Americans are increasingly moving away from people with whom they disagree. Progressives and conservatives both choose states or at least cities or neighborhoods where people are much like them. That reduces contact with others who disagree and reinforces misunderstanding and labelling of others.
First, states were labeled as red or blue depending on political persuasion. Now, people are so labeled. Once the label is attached, it is difficult to view that person in the same way again. Democrats disparage people who support President Trump as “Trumpers” who cannot think for themselves and are blind to the crudeness and instability of the president. Republicans, in turn, consider Democrats unwilling to acknowledge Trump’s accomplishments and focus only on his personality.
Is there a solution to this divisiveness? Solutions will not be immediate. Reform will require patience.
The United Utah Party is a small party. We are still new and unknown. We know we cannot reverse the trend by ourselves. But we believe we are the beginning of the process of turning the nation around, pulling back from the cliff of civil war.
Instead of contributing to polarization, we are seeking to diminish it. How are we doing so?
First, our very existence is a testament to the ability of people to find common ground. We have attracted former Republicans, Democrats and independents into the same party organization. That is the opposite of Democrats who insist that leaders and members be ideologically liberal and Republicans who are doing the same on the right.
Second, we favor talking to one another rather than talking past one another. We do not demonize people of other parties. We are seeking to exemplify rational discussion that does not disintegrate into hysteria, labeling and bitterness.
Third, we propose reforms that we believe will empower people. We believe one cause of the frustration people feel over politics and government is their cynicism about making a difference. Too many media outlets feed citizens a steady diet of cynicism and then tell them to vote at election time. It is understandable that many Americans approach elections with a sense of despair over the ability to change things.
We believe our reforms tilt the focus of government back toward citizens:
Term limits foster competition by removing the incumbent from the race. Incumbent advantages in fundraising and name recognition are reduced, which creates a more level playing field for candidates and more choice for voters.
Campaign finance limits reduce the influence of a small group of individuals, corporations and associations over elected officials. Utah’s campaign finance laws allow any individual or corporation to give an unlimited amount of money to a candidate. With limits in place, candidates would not rely so much on a few wealthy donors. Elected officials would listen more to the many than just to the few.
Ranked choice voting allows the voter to prioritize his or her preferences. That empowers citizens rather than forcing them into an either-or choice they do not like.
The divisiveness that characterizes our nation today must be eliminated. Utah can lead the way in that effort. It would be fitting for us to do that. Join us in turning the tide of divisiveness.