to Form a More Perfect Union

“Unity” is right up there with “thoughts and prayers” in public discourse. I haven’t heard anyone praise today’s polarization, which defines anyone who differs from us as the enemy. We yearn to come together as ___ (Americans? members of a faith or party? humans?). A wish for unity seems the one point on which we all agree. Or do we?

Unity can mean suppressing or excluding anyone who thinks, looks, or acts differently from the norm. Then again, unity can mean making a tent big enough to welcome every speech or action, however dangerous to everyone else. Between the extremes, unity can mean broad inclusion within the limits of safety for the community as a whole. This last form holds great appeal till you ask how and where to draw those limits. Then rancor returns with a vengeance.

Medieval inquisitors burned heretics at the stake to thwart the danger of spreading their heresy, leading others to eternal damnation. England’s first Queen Elizabeth didn’t care what people believed so long as they followed the outward Anglican forms, as a bulwark against Spanish agents plotting to restore Catholicism by force. U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy raised fears of communist infiltration to a fever pitch in the 1950s, destroying some Americans’ lives and threatening others. One person’s freedom is another’s mortal danger.

How can we work toward greater unity without denying our values and experiences? How can we tone down the rhetoric without dismissing dangers we perceive as real? I don’t have the answers. A first step might be to reframe those with whom we disagree, however vehemently, as neighbors rather than enemies.

Image: Original broadside printing of the United States Constitution by Dunlap & Claypoole, 1787.