After any presidential election, one of the first remarks you’ll hear from the projected winner is a call for national unity. How convenient! After witnessing candidates rip the opposition apart throughout the campaign, it would seem like unity is the furthest thing from their minds. Perhaps they’re really calling for the opposition to simply give in and give up.
Everyone surely recognizes that we are in desperate need of coming together in support of our leader, but the big question is “How?”
It has been suggested by the parties that unity can be achieved through success, surviving an epidemic, or political correctness. I don't think so. Conservatives and liberals are drifting so far apart that our society, like a pendulum out of balance, is going to come off its rocker unless something changes.
In my mind, issues such as economic and foreign policies are not extremely divisive, because voters respond to results more than theory. Almost everyone wants social justice, so it’s inexcusable that we can’t agree on how to get it. Everyone also knows in his heart that the president is not responsible for everything that happens, whether good or bad.
Moral issues, however, are a different story. Half of the voters still believe that abortion, at least in the typical case, is murder, that faith is something to be celebrated and perversion is not, and that the constitution was written to be enforced, not interpreted. People who care about these things are not going to change their minds about these things, regardless of who is in power.
I can identify at least three things that could really help restore harmony in our country, without civil conflict or rebellion. The first would be the hard way: an act of God so mighty that even the non-believers would recognize it.
Secondly, all high schools should require from students a better understanding of government and constitutional law. Although I have a diploma, as well as B.S. and M.A. degrees, my knowledge of these complex topics is quite limited, and I imagine that is the case with most voters, even severely limited among most 18-year-old graduates. How can we make wise voting decisions, or be empathetic to the views of others, if we don't have a true understanding of each other’s rights that are protected under state and national citizenship, and those that are not? Far too many opinions are being developed that are based upon propaganda rather than truth.
Most importantly, we must accept that people will always disagree when it comes to incorporating moral standards into law. The writers of our constitution understood this very well, in fact it was one of the chief reasons that the colonies were established in the new world. They not only understood the importance of moral liberty, they also made provisions for it by establishing state and local governments. Our constitution guarantees every legal U.S. resident the rights to life, to relocate freely, to own property, and to be treated equally under state laws. Otherwise, the federal government is to neither enforce nor suppress moral law, but rather leave those issues to be deliberated at state and local levels. This element of dual citizenship has allowed The United States to become a land that offers tremendous civil diversity without the threat of civil war.
Unfortunately, SCOTUS has undermined our freedom by issuing foolish decisions that were severe and unnecessary encroachments on the sovereignty of state governments. Along with a wide variety of cultures, scenery, climate, and socio-economic opportunity, our country offers 50 options for people to live under a rule of law that suits individual moral standards. Shouldn't that be enough to satisfy everyone? When the federal government discards states’ rights for the sake of unprotected civil preferences, that is just as wrong as ignoring protected civil rights for the sake of states’ preferences.
I believe that most Americans are capable, for the sake of our nation, of loving the opposition even while hating the things that are opposed, but nobody likes being forced to live under laws that they don't believe in, especially laws that are blasphemous to the name of the Supreme Ruler.
When SCOTUS puts an end to the damage it is causing, and restores to each state the right to determine its own standard of moral law, then our president can issue a legitimate call for unity.