With election season coming up, this January 20, 2015 editorial from William Marshak gives us a valuable perspective as we get ready to cast our votes. With America’s bipartisan system, there’s an obvious Great Divide between red and blue voters. But the same sharp division brings together voters under the same umbrella who would otherwise vehemently disagree with each other. Marshak writes about the difference between stupidity and ignorance; another point is that when navigating seemingly uncrossable political divides, we also need to be careful not to assume the presence of either one. – Staff
Historical references allude to a “Great Divide” under many different circumstances. For instance, a Continental Divide often refers to geographical watersheds that feed rivers and streams that flow from mountains to oceans. In this context, the Continental Divide of the United States of America is used as reference to the direction and ultimate destination of water to the Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes or Atlantic Ocean. Since the snow pack and terrain of mountains is typically the source of this flow and can present significant obstacles to travel, the meaning of the term extends beyond hydrographic references.
There are many great divides besides geography and water resources. In politics, divides can be seen in philosophical differences of who governs and their authority to govern, the role of religion, culture, participation by an electorate and, if elections are held, who should be included in the electorate. The Civil War [1861-1865] is an example of a notable great divide of U.S. history. A basic definition of who would participate and what the future of our union would be was at the root of that critical conflict.
In our country, strength is seen through representation; elected representatives make determinations through examination of the effects of proposed and existing legislation. They determine whether proposed rules of behavior are for the benefit of their constituents. The system depends on an informed electorate, informed representatives and willingness to compromise, modify and use rational thought to solve common problems. At its heart, the free flow of information and a lucid analysis, including pros and cons of a proposal, are critical for success.
Different philosophies of governance are a question of faith in humanity. For some there is little hope for common rule; ignorance and stupidity are considered one and the same. But, I believe there is a difference. While stupidity and its behavior can only be corrected to an extent through training and repetition, ignorance is simply lack of knowledge and introduction of tools to apply it. If we, as a people, are simply ignorant, there is hope toward correcting our behavior and community engagement. Along with knowledge, civility and attention are necessary ingredients. This can apply to a plethora of circumstances. For instance, driving a motor vehicle, riding a bicycle or as a pedestrian (i.e. pull over for emergency vehicles, understand flashing traffic lights and attention to red lights at an intersection, common courtesy), paying attention to those around even if engrossed by music on an ipod or rude behavior while talking on a cell phone in the grocery store, to name a few.
The great divide of our personal lives is not always as difficult to solve as traversing a huge mountain range. It takes attention and knowledge that can reach across communities. Not only can awareness and information create a better atmosphere on a micro scale, but attention to decisions of our representatives can make a big difference in the quality of life for all.
Expanding awareness of the great divide to the political scene can also reap big rewards. It is heartening to see public response to proposals for growth and development, especially when discussion is thoughtful and coherent. Recently, a group of concerned citizens attended a Historical and Architectural Review Board meeting in Fremont to comment on a proposed gateway development of the Henkel site. Developer and citizen comments were well presented and represented knowledge of the property and its importance to visitors and residents of the Niles District. Acknowledgement of efforts by the developer was included with criticism; this was not a raucous “us versus them” discussion, rather a sensible exchange of ideas. The result was a decision based on citizen concerns; reason, knowledge and civility crossed a great divide of form and function that did not fit the community.
If the same pattern can be used in all future discussions and behavior, we, like many early explorers trying to find a practical path through mountain ranges, may find portage when facing future Great Divides.
