The Wall Street Journal is not a paper whose editorial positions often reflect my own views. I read it anyway. In fact, in large part, I read it because of that fact. Business gurus worry about the "
silo effect." We all ought to worry about it, and I specifically recommend watching out for the "silo effect" as we discuss "politics."
Don Bacon, who is a Republican Member of Congress representing Nebraska's Second Congressional District, wrote a column in the September 10, 2024, edition of
The Wall Street Journal that addressed the issue, although the term "silo effect" was not employed. The title on Bacon's column was this: "
The Other Party Isn't The Enemy."
Among other things, Bacon's column contained this statement:
Our politics have become toxic. Too many voters treat their political party as the most important thing in their lives. They consider the other side to be their enemy or, even worse, evil. This phenomenon spans both parties.
I am in agreement with this statement. Bacon also told the following story about a meeting he had with some of his constituents. In fact, he began his column with this story:
At a March GOP meeting in my congressional district, I said, “I am a Christian first, an American second, and then a Republican.” Immediately, an older gentleman yelled out, “That is why we don’t like you!” I wondered what bothered him more, the Christian or the American part.
As I read Bacon's column, and generally agreed with Bacon's warning about the dangers of a "toxic" politics, two thoughts came to mind. I thought I'd share them here.
First, Bacon begins his column by ennumerating the various "identities" which he believes best define who he is (you could call them "silos," if you wanted to). His identities are "ranked," so Bacon's identity as a "Christian" comes before his identify as an American, and his identity as an "American" comes before his identity as a "Republican."
Please note that Bacon does not suggest that his identity as a "human being" is the same kind of category, and that this category (or identity) supersedes all other "identities." Bacon is also "White," and a "male," and is probably a "college graduate," etc.
The attributes of our persons are manifold. Using them as ways to distinguish ourselves from others is perilous, because to decide that we know who or what we "are," and that who or what we "are" is an identity that excludes other human beings, and puts us in a separate category in which we are "better than," or even just "different from" others, leads to the kind of "toxic" politics to which Bacon properly objects. A common phrase is "Identity Politics." I have just described what that means. Such distinctions, based on the "identity" with which we feel most comfortable, will lead not only to a "toxic" politics. The use of such identity-based distinctions will lead to a "toxic" set of human relationships in general, "politics" aside. I have put it this way, in earlier blog postings: "
Comparisons are odious." I can thank my mother for that one. And I do!
Bacon is totally correct that this "comparison" way of thinking about things is emphatically
not restricted to "Republicans." For instance, I have a Facebook Friend who made a comment, sometime ago, in response to something I posted on my
Facebook Profile Page. My friend ended a comment on politics with the thought that we need to "get rid of Republicans." The implications of that suggestion could be dramatic, and don't strike me as very good. As a Democrat, I get LOTS of comments from other Facebook "Friends" who suggest that the world would be better if it were only possible to get rid of me.
I have written about this phenomenon before. "In-person," the kind of comments that Don Bacon is talking about often resolve themselves rather positively. Less so when the comments are delivered by way of online invective or are
given credence by candidates for president who are currently past their "safe to use" date.
Here is my second comment about Bacon's column. I think Bacon's title is under-inclusive. The "Other Party" is, I agree, not "The Enemy." But who is? Who is "The Enemy"? Do we really want to decide that there are categories of "Friends," and catagories of "Enemies," and that we need to know which one is which, and then act accordingly - "getting rid" of those "Enemies" being the obvious task at hand?
I would like to suggest that a "fill in the blank" approach to the phrase that Bacon uses in his headline is, in fact, the correct approach. Whoever or whatever we might want to put in that "blank" space in the sentence I have used for my title, the sentence is correct. "Enemies" is not a category that we should be using to distinguish those who are different from ourselves, or with whom we disagree.
Just by chance, as I looked for a photo for the top of today's blog posting, and thought some image associated with The Wall Street Journal would be appropriate, I came upon the photo you can see above, Putin and the Pope. Whatever your political or religious views might be, neither Putin nor the Pope are "The Enemy." Looking at the photo, it seems that they might both understand that, too!
There is a phrase that I often utilize (and I am always tickled to find that
Joyce Vance uses it, too, in her daily postings to her Substack blog, "
Civil Discourse"). Here it is, right at the end of this paragraph. This is the reason you can "fill in the blank" in that sentence I have used as a headline, and disscover that the sentence will absolutely be true (no matter what you put in the blank space). Whoever we put into the blank space "Isn't The Enemy." Why not? As Joyce Vance and I both say:
We are all in this together.
