The New Segregation

Make the Future Great Again

As a first time candidate, one rarely runs for statewide office. I never understood this and probably never will being that all positions within government are equally important considering the interdependence needed to collectively move this state forward. The fact of the matter is that I only concentrated on what I knew and what I thought would be beneficial to the majority, regardless of party affiliation. I agree with democrats and progressives when it comes to social policy and I align with republicans when it comes to fiscal responsibility. This was a difficult campaign on a moral level. Not to mention mentally taxing trying to incorporate all sides of the political spectrum into impactful policy which benefits all Vermonters. Still, the exposure to our political program was inexorable and brought about a number of revelations.

One aspect which was thoroughly surprising occurred to me when I looked at the seating chart for the house of representatives. I saw groups of Democrats and Republicans and Progressives. Complete segregation. How do we expect to accomplish anything if we are unable to intermingle with individuals who have differing beliefs? This is not a new concept given what our country has been through. If we begin the day segregated and eliminate what little proximity we have to the representatives of a different school of thought, we are ignoring valuable insight. Developing personal relationships with individuals of varying “cultures” is absolutely paramount when multiple groups believe their vision of/for the state is accurate. However, that is not the most challenging aspect of integration.

The elemental nature of being humble is the structure on which meaningful compromise is achieved. Setting aside ego manifested through personal or professional experience/entitlement allows one to initiate active listening and place themselves within the rationale of the other. This temporary relinquishing of one’s ideals for the sake of connection allows the individual to cerebrally adopt another person’s policy stance. Once that state of mind is achieved, it opens the floor to an honest discussion on how the idea could work and fosters productive discussions on the impact it would have on the vast majority of the state. After the policy/idea is viewed through the originator’s perspective, then and only then can accurate judgements be made concerning the effect on Vermont. This is not a process reserved for those with whom you agree! It’s vitally important to forget how you may appear when opening up to such personally dichotomous dialogue. I know some would shriek at the idea of placing themselves in a republican and/or democrat’s shoes and absolutely abhor the consequences of the media catching wind of the discussion and then misinterpreting the purpose behind the conversation but it’s a necessity risk in order for the state to move as one. A politician who is too afraid, party proud or simply chooses not to submerge themselves in an unpopular fellow legislature’s policy stance is simultaneously turning their back on a piece of Vermont. It’s nonsensical to write off any thought provoking source because a tremendous amount of insight can be gained through intelligent collaboration. And always keep in mind that it’s stupid to think or assume another person is stupid.

All cognitive alterations and subsequent movements of this magnitude had turbulent events which showed the public the importance of acceptance, understanding and productive conversations. Luckily our political structure is one of physical restraint but the mental taxation both parties inflict in their race to defame raises barriers around progress. I reiterate; We cannot hope to collectively benefit if the state is divided in such a stubbornly decisive manner.

Consider our current presidential election. People enjoy bashing Trump and Hillary but we do not realize that it is us and our neighbors who have allowed this divide and hatred to transpire. It’s very simple to brand the opposition as the instigator but the truth is that both sides of the political spectrum are unwilling to accept the other. Many citizens now feel that the stronger their opposition to the other nominee, the more support they provide to their candidate. Let this be clear; Lack of acceptance does not reinforce one’s own political beliefs, it merely blinds you to a different methodology and/or political culture. Instead of attacking a person’s character and by extension the character of that person’s supporters, we should be focused on their policy, on their potential and on their acceptance of an eclectic mix of opinions because America is a melting pot of cultures, ideas, religions, you name it.

The physical altercations and aggressive protesting we have seen this campaign season are, in my opinion, reasonable considering the displays of deep seeded conviction usually reserved for religious figures. Voters feel defensive and fearful for holding their position and it causes them to lash out against those who are OPENLY THREATENING to the belief structure they are attempting to enact. Unfortunately, the supporters of politicians are not politicians themselves and do not possess the learned behavior of restraint. Whether the philosophy professed is one of love or hate, one begets the other and can be found amongst both Bernie and Trump supporters. It’s important to remember that professing love without acceptance leaves an open door for hate.

I’m not certain if the continental atmosphere had any influence but the political climate is so unstable that during my primary campaign here in Vermont I was unsure of who I could turn to for advice and guidance. Being a self-proclaimed Democratic-Republican didn’t exactly help and prompted one of my closest friends to remind me of the saying, “A friend of all is a friend of none,” which I still refuse to believe. Some knowledgeable “insiders” that I asked for help who, believe it or not, hold very similar values to myself, did not outwardly show any support although I’m sure they had their reasons. In addition, the party I always imagined being a member of didn’t express much excitement for my candidacy. I must admit that reluctance I felt was understandable but the idealist in me was hoping for a hand. I do not harbor any ill will. I guess I was caught up with the message of working together in order to improve the living conditions of the vast majority. I swore the tides seemed to be turning in favor of tangible change. I know I witnessed an awakening of society to the power of collective action towards shaping an economically inclusive future while honoring the principles of the past.

There is always a learning curve associated with any new endeavor.

At the end of it all, if there was one change I could initiate, it wouldn’t be for a state bank, it wouldn’t be for divestment nor for a reliable financial structure on which to build positive social impact investment and policy. It would be to end the politically inspired segregation which exists between Vermonters and especially within our nation.

Once again, shout out to @thebear and @berniesanders