Resolving Social Conflict

There are multitudes of social conflicts in America today. In fact, the list would be shorter if we were to enumerate the potential conflicts that aren't presently active. The more well-known ones include Rich vs. Poor, Black vs. White, and Unrestricted Freedom vs. Regulation.

Looking at that list, it is easy to see the parallels between the social conflicts that are the root cause of much of the nation's unrest, including driving crime, and the hottest political conflicts in our nation today. That is not a coincidence.

Arguably, every substantiative distinction between the political parties in the modern era stems from these very notions of social conflict. The people who seek to lead our nation need to prove to the voters that they have a plan to 'fix' what's wrong with America; to do that, they first have to identify the problems. And, in doing so, they inevitably encounter social conflict. Bearing that in mind, all that remains for a would-be politician to do is to pick a side.

Few of these conflicts are productive. Partly because of politics, but moreso because of the tendency of people to believe that their own views are correct, regardless of the available information, little is accomplished amidst all the bickering about political philosophy and attempts to secure some form of moral high ground. In the heat of the quarreling, little of substance is actually accomplished to resolve any of the issues.

Even when a conflict does begin to turn productive, opponents of the particular philosophy in ascendance will attempt to undermine it. Take Affirmative Action, for example. Here is a program designed to defuse some the conflict caused by racial imbalance and inequity. It is an attempt to turn the continued argument over race into a productive conflict. However, leaders who hold a differing viewpoint contend that Affirmative Action only serves to widen the racial divide by breeding bitterness and resentment on both sides.

While arguments can be made for either side concerning this particular program, the bottom line is that our leaders have taken what could have been an ideal starting point for resolving this conflict, and turned it into yet another point of contention. Instead of working together to improve upon this program, or develop new, better programs (which would be productive, and actually help people), they've collectively chosen to argue about the nature of the program in its current state.

A wise man once said that the only way to solve a problem is to look for solutions. By focusing only on the fact that there is a problem, we achieve nothing. So it is with the majority of social conflicts in America today: our leaders are more concerned with the problems themselves than with finding solutions. They are more interested in assigning blame (to the other guy) than making things better.

And that itself leads us into the most prominent social conflict in America today: Red vs. Blue. The rhetoric from both sides has polarized the nation to the degree that we are essentially paralyzed. As Orson Scott Card puts it in his novel "Empire", we have become a nation of extremists. Anyone who does not agree with our preferred view on a given subject is either an idiot or a traitor. Terry Goodkind once observed of human nature that "passion rules reason", and that seems to be reflected in supposedly "enlightened" circles today. We seem to believe that if a person is not passionate (read: 'irrational') about a given topic, then he or she has nothing of value to say on the matter.

All of which tie in together to bind us, preventing us from doing any good for anyone (but does a wonderful job of maintaining the status quo). Our political system, in what began as an effort to resolve our social conflicts, has itself become a Gordian knot of social conflict.

But instead of adding to the problem by simply assigning blame, each of us has the potential to start to cut away at that knot. We can start looking for solutions. For starters, we can elect leaders who offer solutions of their own, not just more of the same garbage. We can seek out candidates who have proven their willingness to take action. We have come to a stage in American history where we can no longer afford to simply vote in a person whose thoughts are color-coded in the same way as our own - we need real leadership.

But, better yet, we can stop relying on others to do our thinking for us. We can look for solutions to our social problems on our own, without waiting for our so-called leaders to decide that people suffering needlessly is a bad thing. We don't need "leaders" to lead us; the potential to make our own way, to show others how to get things done, lies within every one of us.

Look at organizations like the Salvation Army, which recently celebrated its 125th anniversary. Here is a group of people who, while they are unable to eliminate society's problems, they have done more to mitigate the underlying issues than nearly any politician has in those 125 years. We may not agree with all their ideas, or their personal philosophies, but that doesn't matter: they are productive, they are getting things done.

That same potential to take action resides within every one of us, within every American. That is, after all, the ideal of America, is it not? That any person can do as he or she sees fit towards the goal of bettering our society? That any person, no matter his or her station in life, possesses the capacity to make this world a better place?

We recognize that while society must act collectively to accomplish tasks that affect all of society, ideas stem from individuals. In that regard, every single person, from the tip of Maine to the shores of Guam, has the ability - nay, the authority - to step up to our challenges and become a real leader.

Ultimately, are not our present predicaments a result of our failure to utilize that basic principle? We concede our own authority to others, preferring to sit in comfort while the world crumbles around us. 'Let someone else make the decisions,' we say. 'Let someone else bear the burden.' But, if those of us who are truly capable of making a real difference do not rise to meet this duty, who will?

If those of us most worthy shun the mantle of leadership, who will be left to take it up but those who covet it?