Good or bad, politics will never change unless people similarly change. Like it or not, terribly flawed for sure, politics’ adversarial nature is a mirror of the electorate, a reflection of our local, state and national conflicted identity. Politics is what we make of it. “We the people,” disunited even on our best days. As pointedly put: “This is what democracy looks like.” 

Unfortunately, few really want to take a long, hard look at who and what we actually are. Much of politics is about long-held assumptions rather than actual acquaintanceship. Politicians take every advantage of that prevalent practice of perfunctory participation. Most of us aren’t active players at any governmental level, just casual spectators at best. Even those more engaged citizens given to following the day-to-day workings of governance tire of envisioning anything much beyond their own partisan agenda. Some talk the talk that politics should strive to do what’s best for the greater good, but so often that only means what’s good for their perceived side of the aisle. Mostly it’s about the left vs. right, up and down, give-and-take addictive rush of gamesmanship. About who’s ahead in the polls, or which tweet’s the prevailing tweet du jour. Always, it’s about everything orbiting around our all-encompassing 24-7 reality TV presidency. America’s version of an egocentric Sun King or a delusional King George. Revolution could again be the solution, but Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have summarily decreed impeachment as too big a risk given 2020’s roulette wheel uncertainty in challenging a chief executive all too adept at sordid gambling practices. 

Much of the electorate approaches politics as if it’s a sport rather than something of actual importance, routinely rooting for one of two major teams and never accepting that the other franchise isn’t comprised of totally reprehensible bums. That’s our perennially loosing reality in attempting to cobble together a unified government capable of compromising sufficiently enough so a more beneficial common existence can be achieved for all. Shame on America. 

To the great detriment of our nation’s still heroic intent, we’ve reduced the truly revolutionary opportunity of a republican governance of democratic self-rule to just more age-old division between the haves and the have-nots, those who worship differently, or not at all, or those of dissimilar lifestyles or ancestry. America certainly has no scarcity of contentious bones to pick over. We share a richly diverse dislike of difference, having a long history as a nation of immigrants who historically held very little tolerance for each other. Xenophobia has always been a big part of American’s true identity. 

Homogeneity’s great as long as sameness and uniformity doesn’t oppress variety and uniqueness. The consistency and security of kindredness has legitimate appeal. New England continually charms with its period architectural cohesiveness and distinctive regionally unified character. Maine largely remains an outlier from a supposed national melting pot. As a beautifully distanced geographical appendage still holding out against much of mainstream conformity, Maine revels in its Vacationland status as long as those visiting ultimately go home again. Building a second home’s perfectly fine, but please remain seasonal. No offense intended. Those “from away” nevertheless continue to return, and Maine’s proud separateness continues to enjoy a certain attractive mystique. “The Way Life Should Be.” “Finest Kind.” 

Now some Mainers fear an influx of those with far, far more awayness. It’s OK if Maine’s major cities have begun looking like their counterparts in other states if the overall demographic appearance of Maine elsewhere stays the same. Nimbyism has yet another reason for being. Maine’s increasingly aged populace likely has a lot to do with increasingly looking backward rather than forward regarding changes of any type. Meanwhile, the familiar Mainer fear of losing one’s job to an outsider is now competing with the growing fear of being unable to maintain a workforce at all. Totally unreassuringly, Maine’s economic pie always seems to remain the same inadequate size. Without serious reapportioning of its slices the basic needs of all will always remain unmet. Whether achieved by capitalism or moderate democratic socialism, wouldn’t we all be better served if everyone’s plate held at least enough to provide minimum sustenance? How do we benefit from anyone’s ultimately collectively costly marginalization? 

Maine’s now poised for some major changes on all fronts. E-reality advances its unstoppable globalization. Unchecked climate change will only bring on more unwanted refugees and asylum seekers. Going it alone at any sociopolitical interface is looking more and more like a really bad idea. How long will it take before we finally allow politics to unite us rather than tearing each other down? 

Recently, a liberal acquaintance straight out asked why I even associate with those across the ever-widening take-no-prisoners political divide. My answer was that my conservative friends have always known which way my politics lean, yet they’ve nonetheless extended their friendship. 

Fighting hatred with a politically correct version of the same poison is unlikely to succeed. Beholding each other as truthfully far more alike than not would be a beautiful change-up. Possibly even a win-win game changer. 

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.