In politics, the game is mean-spiritedness

Have we grown so small-minded as a country, as a people that we will stoop to mean-spiritedness: (Having or characterized by a malicious or petty spirit) as the mode of our political discourse?. To quote President Obama, but cast in a very negative context, Yes We Can. In point of fact, yes we have. In our political discourse, we have reached a very low point in civility, a very high level of nastiness.

Mean-spirited politicians are nothing new. Even Thomas Jefferson warned of the pitfalls of the mean-spirited in his Second Inaugural address:

Let us then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things.

And let us reflect, that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little, if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and as capable of bitter persecutions.

For many years, I was of the opinion that a split congress and presidency was the best approach to federal government. With one party holding the executive branch and the other holding the majority in one or more of the congressional bodies, compromise would be required to get anything done in the federal government. That opinion was dashed several years back when it became apparent that the two parties were pulling so strongly in opposite directions. Compromise seemed and continues to appear to be out of the question. The fact that these two fighting forces have no concern for the welfare of the country is leading to our self-destruction.

Where does this approach lead us? For a look in the mirror that may portend our future, check out this speech by Abraham Lincoln on the occasion of his June 16, 1858 selection, by more than 1,000 Republican delegates (meeting as the Republican State Convention in the Springfield, Illinois, statehouse) that chose Lincoln as the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Speaking of slavery, but just as applicable for intransigence of the two ideological-driven political parties of today, Lincoln stated:

... In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand. ..."

Undoubtedly, Lincoln was not so prescient that he understood the circumstances of today's differences between the political parties, but Lincoln makes clear in this speech and other of his observations that he well understood human nature and its failings.

Move to the twenty-first century, in 2011, we are divided, perilously divided and I fear we have no plans for reconciliation. So, maybe we will prove Lincoln right all over again. The last time, it took civil war. What will it take today to bring our politicians, our country-men together for the good of our country, for our own well-being and for the benefit of future generations?

Undoubtedly, democracy thrives on the tensions of two parties straining against different ideas. Out of differences can come solutions to problems that all fair-minded people will accept. But to reach fair solutions to our problems and to make the best choices on opportunities that present themselves, the decision makers must be fair minded and willing to listen to the other side, to consider their needs and to compromise on the best choices. Today, our two parties are unwilling to do that ...to listen, to consider, to compromise.

Our citizenry, either as the driving force or, I believe, as separate herds of followers are divided behind camps of intransigent politicians. We are not just followers aligned behind the leaders of two parties, Democratic and Republican. We have broken into smaller factions, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, independents, tea-partier's, and many others. We are aligned behind a gaggle of personalities (more often than not, driven by paid lobbyists), people with few qualifications to lead our country, but an ample supply of self-promotion, the chutzpah to do or say anything that will get themselves one more minute of air-time, one more opportunity to enrich themselves and their patrons at the expense of the American people. Finally, the patients have taken over the asylum. Divided we are. Must it inevitably always be?