Lincoln’s Lament: We Must Find Our Political Center and Save the Union

Lincoln’s house is most definitely staggering in all directions.

Divide and conquer — that’s how the battle goes. The nation is tugged to the left with the progressive, magnetic pull of figures like Warren, AOC, and Sanders most of whom argue for government to take on the burdens of health care, climate crisis, and income equality (they are just some of those proponents).

Meanwhile, America is in the grips of the right with the Trump administration, the influence of McConnell on the judiciary and legislative branches, and the fear of a “Deep State.”

And if that were not enough, Americans find themselves worrying whom to trust. (Where did you go Walter Cronkite?) The “mainstream” media is labeled “fake news” by an administration, which claims that organizations like The New York Times are the “enemy of the people.” The Fox News channel is blamed for being a collaborator and mouthpiece for the interests often labeled “Far Right.”

So what do Americans trust and where is the center of political gravity? The answer: “pragmatism, compromise and limits” according to the writer Beverly Gage. (Yes, for full disclosure, she writes for The New York Times Magazine.) As a matter of fact, she explained that this moderation “…can be hard to rally people behind….” However, this essay is my singular rallying cry. Read on.

While moderation and “centering” oneself may be the mantra of personal wellness; I would argue it is the only way to heal the divide that has pitted patriotic Americans against each other. (After all, it was the key to success for the great Coach John Wooden, but let’s stick to politics for now.) Let’s take on the issues and see if there is consensus.

Can we agree that Medicare generally works? Can we agree that keeping one’s private insurance if one prefers is also beneficial? They do not have to be mutually exclusive. There are many Democratic candidates who support this position; Beto O’Rourke comes to mind. The Republican option is to kill the ACA with no plan to insure the 20–40 million people who would be removed from insurance to have any hope for coverage.

Can we agree that drug cartels in the three Central American nations are murderous, breed corruption, and have been the reason for the exodus of innocent people in harm’s way? So wouldn’t it make sense to deal with security and poverty there before many more immigrants pour into Mexico and America? Wouldn’t that be a smart investment?

Can we agree that those who do seek asylum need to be treated according to the “Golden Rule?” Haven’t we learned from the past wars that refugees are the innocent ones caught in the gunfire? Can’t we agree that these folks really are here as a last resort? Wouldn’t we do the same if we were as threatened as they?

Can we agree that human beings of all races and standing must be treated with dignity?

So can’t we agree that immigration judges, who are under the overwhelming stress of 50 cases before them a day, be bolstered with more judges? Money being allocated to deal with the problems of overcrowding and underserved (in terms of food and other necessities) should be targeted to the problem and not feeding the coffers of private security firms (which are making a killing financially on a per diem basis.)

Can we agree that the globe is heating up at unprecedented rates? That the glaciers are melting? That ubiquitous extreme weather conditions are not normal? Now the tricky part — can we agree that man made pollutants are the cause? I think we can. 121 nations agreed in Paris. (Then, America pulled out of the Paris Accord.) So do 95% of all scientists (The other 5% are working for the fossil fuel industry — the source of energy that may be replaced.) Can we also agree that our children and their children will face a crisis of unimagined horror if we don’t begin now? Perhaps a “Green Revolution” may be too extreme for some, but renewable energy is the only way out. We cannot “clean coal” our way out of this. Neither is fracking or drilling in the Arctic long term solutions.

So ignoring these issues or denying that they exist is not an option. Numerous candidates are behind varying plans to move America in the direction needed. Some say, why should we lead, or what good will it do if other nations pollute? Answer: why did we enter WWII and stop Hitler? That’s what we do. We save the world from disaster. That’s what makes us great. But we have to do it as one.

Finally, let’s talk income insecurity. Can we agree that medical insurance and prescription drugs cost too much? Well, my first point on Medicare/ private insurance would go a long way to dealing with part of that. (Of course, it means that Obamacare is a good idea that needs to be expanded.) We know the voters were up in arms when they believed they would lose it. (And only Senator John McCain saved it, along with a tepid Justice Roberts).

As for prescription drugs, can we agree that Canada and other nations have eased the burden of high cost? (If you don’t believe that one, do a little research. Diabetics know how expensive insulin is and how much cheaper it is Canada. What it means is that Big Pharma has to be reeled in. Many candidates have plans for that, too.

So why aren’t any of these ideas being debated in the halls of Congress. One reason is the filibuster. According to Senate rules: “In essence, a filibuster is any use of procedural rules to block or delay legislative action. The continual talking prevents the matter from being voted on, and the bill may simply be ‘talked to death.’” Nowadays, they just know that if either side can’t get 60 votes, why bother? However, sometimes legislation may get the votes, then the second barrier comes into play. Senate Majority Leader McConnell can refuse to bring a bill to “the floor.” That is why he calls himself “the Grim Reaper.” Remember, we reap what we sow; and if we sow division, we all lose.

That’s why nothing happens…or at least a reasonable part of why nothing is accomplished. So what can be done? Several candidates like Governor Jay Inslee (among others) advocate that the filibuster must end; 51 votes in the Senate should allow a bill to pass. And the power of the Speaker should not be absolute. If, say for example, 30 senators demand a bill be brought to the vote, so be it. It may not be Robert’s Rules of Order…but since I am Robert, I can make a new rule.

Moderation, compromise, pragmatism, limits — these are not liberal or conservative ideas. They are part of the building blocks that help build American values.

Our Civil War was the bloodiest attack this Union has ever experienced. It’s true that Lincoln made many compromises to end slavery. The economic issues on which the South relied, as well as the protection of States’ sovereignty did not outweigh the inhumane, inherent nature of slavery that America considers its Original Sin. The State of our Union is in crisis. If we don’t find our center and make a change in our discourse, we will, most surely, perish as the bastion of freedom for all.