This last election has seen a rather interesting polarization of American politics, something of which I have been guilty myself, such as when I wrote a column after the health care vote on how Democrats were trying to destroy America. Obviously that isn’t true, but the highly charged nature of the debate has changed the way we do politics.

Now, instead of discussing ideas in the public sphere and measuring how worthy they are, we have college students hacking Sarah Palin’s e-mail or ridiculous rumors about Barack Obama being an immigrant Muslim. This might be odd for a conservative columnist to say, but I think it is time we actually have a discussion about the problems our country faces and possible solutions to them.

I understand this is difficult, especially when dealing with emotional issues. I cannot tell you how much hate mail I get, death threats or disgusted stares when I wear conservative T-shirts. However, that is not real dialogue, and honestly, it does nothing to help the country. Would it not be better to sit down with those people with whom we disagree and see where there is common ground?

This leads me to when I first met one of the most liberal people I have ever met. Lynn Sacco is a self-described radical, and when I first took her survey course, I thought she was a femi-nazi Bolshevik. I have never been one to shy away from debate, so I was relatively excited at the prospects. After I wrote a letter to the Daily Beacon when someone tried to erroneously argue about MLK’s legacy, she called me out of class and said that she thought my opinion was ridiculous, but that she appreciated I took the time to write to the newspaper. She then invited me to come to her office to talk further. So, I went.

Ever since then we have talked politics constantly, seeing as it is our favorite topic. We do not agree on the issues. I am a Southern, gun-loving, right-wing, fundamentalist Christian neoconservative, while she is a Yankee, peacenik, far-left and secular liberal. This is why our relationship is unusual. Although we fundamentally disagree about public policy to our cores, we are able to sit down with a cup of coffee and converse about politics and the world.

Sometimes it gets heated when we take issues personally or misinterpret the motives of the other, but we eventually calm down and resume the discussion.  We can do that because we took the time to get to know one another. I have several friends who have refused to take her class because of her leftist reputation. But I always say that she is one of my favorite professors, and that they should take the course because it will open their eyes to a new way of thinking. This has an important and powerful message for the right and left in this country and in the government.

Starting on Jan. 20, America will have a divided government. The Senate and presidency will be Democratic, and the House will be Republican. In the previous election cycle, the Republicans tried to stop, and successfully slowed down, legislation that was wrong for country. Yet, they should have done something different; the Democrats should have, as well.

They should have talked throughout the entire process and learned to compromise. I am not saying bipartisan support, but that each side should have given to the other. In the instance of health care, the Republicans could have given the Democrats a public option, and the Democrats could have given the Republicans tort reform. Of course, neither side would be happy, but that is politics. The best policy solutions come when the two sides talk about the different problems and reach a compromise where neither side gets everything they want.

This comes back to the example of me and Sacco. We know there are certain values we both hold dear, and we know the other loves this country very much. We both want what is best, even if we disagree about what to do. This does not mean that we should throw our hands up in the air and stop talking to each other. Instead, we come together to have a conversation and to understand each other. If two people as diametrically opposed as myself and Sacco can talk about politics and come to an (informal) agreement about the best approach to policy, it should be possible for our national leaders and pundits to do the same.


—Treston Wheat is a senior in political science and history. He can be reached at twheat@utk.edu.