Editor’s note: The Portager publishes letters to the editor from the community. The opinions expressed are published not because they necessarily reflect those of the publication but because we feel they contribute meaningfully to the local discourse on matters of public interest.
Political polarization in the U.S. is nothing new. As far back as 1804, a long-simmering dispute between the two major parties — Democratic-Republicans and Federalists — led to an infamous duel. Former secretary of state Alexander Hamilton was shot to death by Vice President Aaron Burr.
Divisions reached their apex in the Civil War that raged from 1861 to 1865. That was followed by the struggles of the Reconstruction Era, the rise of trade unions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the so-called Red Scare of the early 1950s. Still, politically charged anger, fear and animosity permeate today’s society at levels unmatched in my lifetime.
When bicycling through Portage and surrounding counties, I count political yard signs. As one might expect, municipalities like Kent are overwhelmingly Democratic; in rural areas, the balance shifts in the opposite direction. Still, the mix seems closer than in recent years.
The signs I witness reflect powerful convictions. It’s heartening to see my fellow citizens’ engagement and impassioned efforts to promote their preferred candidates and ballot issues. A diversity of views and intense debate are fundamental to the democratic process. I am, however, troubled by the demonization of those with whom we disagree.
A house I often pass has an enormous sign that reads, “F___ Biden!” though he no longer is a candidate. A poster on a busy road still says, “Fix 2020 first!” Presidential candidate Donald Trump refers to his opponent, Kamala Harris, as not simply mistaken but “mentally impaired.” He insults her with such terms as “crazy” and describes her as a “radical left lunatic.” He calls his political opponents “the enemy from within” and speaks of plans to the silence them with military force.
Likewise, in a highly publicized and controversial Facebook post, Portage County Sheriff Bruce Zuchowski demeaned immigrants as “locusts” and Harris as a “laughing hyena,” while urging his followers to record addresses of homes displaying Harris signs. Not surprisingly, many Harris supporters regard that post from the county’s highest law enforcement officer as intimidating and have forcefully pushed back.
In yard signs, ads and public statements, Democrats tend to avoid the most incendiary language. In private conversations, however, they often question Trump’s motives and mental acuity. They also publicly cite what they see as indications of dementia, and many characterize him as a “threat to democracy.”
We, by all means, should debate such pressing issues as who is the real threat to democracy, and in what way. It is disturbing, however, when participants in such debates substitute personal slurs for thoughtful conversation.
Most people, I’m convinced, want what is best for those around them — for their family, community, country, and even the world at large — as well as for themselves. Their understandings differ, based on their experience and information sources. In most cases, nonetheless, I believe that their positions are sincerely held. That is as true of folks with whom I adamantly disagree as those whose politics align with mine.
My politics are clearly on the left. In my estimation, society works most effectively when people think cooperatively, share resources, and look out for one another rather than compete to accumulate personal wealth. Still, I try to listen thoughtfully to those with alternate perspectives. At times, a cogent counterargument or unanticipated sequence of events leads me to reassess my stance. I’ve learned that I can only hone my understanding if I take my interlocutors seriously. Should I dismiss all those who disagree with me as “hateful,” “evil,” or “mentally deficient,” I deny myself the chance to gain a better handle on reality.
To take one example, I find Sheriff Zuchowski’s controversial post offensive. At the same time, I am willing to accept his claim that it was meant to be facetious and not literal. Who, after all, has not made comments that the listener misunderstood? Yet, the point remains that many reasonable people see his words as threatening.
If Zuchowski’s message truly has been misconstrued, an appropriate response would have been to remove his post, apologize, and explain what he really meant. At length, he did declare that he was misinterpreted. Rather than apologize, however, he and his spokespeople accused those expressing concern of political gamesmanship.
All indications are that next month’s election will be close. Regardless of who wins, I hope we will continue our robust debate about the best course for our region, state, and country. That includes a hope that those in the minority (whoever they may be) feel free to criticize political decision-makers.
A mutually respectful dialogue is critical for several reasons. One is the age-old principle of treating one another as we wish to be treated, ourselves. Perhaps more importantly, impassioned advocacy for our positions, while listening carefully and respectfully to all the counterarguments, is essential if we are to get things right.
Rick Feinberg
Professor emeritus of anthropology at Kent State University
The Portager publishes a range of opinions from the community. To submit a letter to the editor, write to [email protected].