Regardless of how you voted, there is some good news coming out of the election: The nation won't be waiting in limbo to see who its next president will be. President Bush apparently won both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. He also received more votes than any other president in U.S. history. Nevertheless, there was only one state that produced a different result than in the controversial election of 2000, and that was New Hampshire.
Which means we are still a nation deeply divided by its political convictions.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, though.
While Americans may disagree vigorously about which political party or which person is the best to lead the country or represent a particular legislative district, isn't that disagreement what makes America great? Wouldn't it be more dangerous (and just a tad boring) if we all agreed?
Isn't it worth celebrating that the nation can experience another close presidential election without fear the United States of America will fall apart at the seams? Isn't it possible that the great political divide the country currently is experiencing is one of the best checks and balances government at all levels has?
Most candidates didn't win by big enough margins that they can afford to accept their victory as a clear mandate. They still must represent all the people, not just those who elected them to office. If they are smart, they will accept their victory with a big dose of humility and extend a handshake to their opponents.
Of course, after the bitterness of the campaign season, offering an olive branch may seem just a bit disingenuous. Still, it's necessary.
The biggest challenge the victors in Tuesday's election have is moving the nation and state forward in a spirit of cooperation and nonpartisanship. Yes, we may not agree on some big issues, but there is common ground on which to build the future. That common ground is love for the country. A close election doesn't have to be a wedge that drives us further apart; instead, it should be a catalyst that brings us together.
One of the ways for that to happen is for all of us to examine how we disagree. The political climate in this country could be greatly improved if there was a better understanding of the difference between dogma, debate and dialogue.
Dan Chay, a member of the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly and board member of the Center for Mediation and Community Dialogue has explained the difference this way: "A dogmatic attitude is 'I'll say what I think and I don't care at all about anyone else's opinion.' The goal of debate, by definition, is to win, which cultivates an atmosphere of competition and conflict. The purpose of dialogue is to discuss topics with the goal of increased understanding."
The nation is in great need of some increased understanding right about now. Let's bring on the dialogue and let the healing begin.
We encourage you to add your comments. To prevent spam, comments with links are manually approved during the normal business day. Please be respectful of others with your comments, bear in mind anyone in the community may be reading your comments.
