The President We Need is a Unifier, Not a Divider

To Michael Maccoby’s excellent prescription for “The President We Need,” I would add: the president needs to be a unifier rather than a divider. President Trump has deliberately rejected an elemental task of national leadership: showing respect for the wide range of the citizenry, including those who disagree with him. We are now experiencing historically high levels of polarization—the highest in 50 years by virtually all measures. Though he did not cause it, this President has governed by amplifying that division; he consistently glorifies his “base” and attacks the opposition with vitriol that has little precedent. We have never seen a president whose approval ratings have remained so limited and stable, well below 50%, through highly tumultuous events. His adherents are for him through thick and thin and his opponents are just as unalterably opposed.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the division and its dangers. In crises, people almost always rally around their leader; it’s a basic human instinct for group protection. But not this time. In the weeks after 9/11, George W. Bush’s approval rating went from around 50% to over 90%. In the weeks after the eruption of the COVID-19 crisis, Trump’s approval rating briefly rose a little, from the low 40s to the low 50s, and quickly sank right back down again to the previous levels, then below even that.

This was an opportunity to bring the country together to deal with a common threat. Instead, the division has grown between those who, with Trump, downplay the seriousness of the disease and resist restrictions on economic activity, and those who see it as a grave threat justifying major shutdowns. The President has spent much of his time attacking his opponents by insulting Democrats and Democratic states and cities, calling their leaders “weak,” and even launching an unfounded charge of murder against a Republican critic. Not surprisingly, the nation has entirely failed to come together in a coherent strategy supported by the citizenry.

This rupture is deeply harmful to the nation and our future.

Page 21

We are locked in a vicious circle of mistrust, driven by relatively small numbers of ideologies. Yet everyone is pushed to identify with one side, defend that side in all circumstances, and defeat the other side by any means necessary. I now hear this frenzy constantly from my friends on the Left as well as from the Right. Such vicious circles are common historically and they almost always end badly. Each move by one side, regardless of its intent, is interpreted by the other as a threat, producing an escalating tit-for-tat, which slides toward either paralysis or violent conflict.

Thus the president we need is, first of all, one who will listen to and respect his opponents. Nelson Mandela is one leader who, when faced with a situation of deep mistrust and conflict, reached out to both sides and went a long way toward healing their wounds. He did it in part by listening, entering into the spaces of the White opposition, and celebrating their symbols (his support for the national rugby team is a crucial example) without soft-pedaling his own beliefs.

We know from evidence and experience that when you get people together to work on an issue, even now, they find far more agreement than they expected. I have seen very constructive conversations between diehard pro-life and pro-choice advocates as well as gun rights and gun control advocates; though they mistrusted each other deeply, they were able to agree on many principles and policies that they could pursue together.

A second aspect we need now in a leader is a unifying vision. Trump’s vision to “Make America Great Again” or MAGA appeals to the substantial part of the population, which feels alienated and diminished by current trends of globalization and rapid technological advances. But this vision does not unite; it is part of the divisive character of Trump’s presidency. It does not resonate with a majority of the country; his active disapproval levels have generally stayed over 50%. About three-fourths of the country now agree with values that the President has minimized or rejected: that “It is important to try to understand people we don’t agree with;” “People should be encouraged to celebrate their cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic differences;” and “People from other places and cultures help us to grow, we should learn from them.” (These are results from my national survey in 2018; they are consistent with results from similar items in other polls.)

The Democratic party has not produced an alternative vision

Page 22

that is more successful in unifying the nation. Key liberal themes—including continued globalization and technological development, along with major government activism to redistribute wealth and advance racial justice—resonate with even fewer people than MAGA. Government action to reduce inequality and climate changes are quite divisive even within the Democratic voter cohort. So according to one study, two-thirds of Americans now form an “exhausted majority,” unhappy with their own tribe but deeply repelled by the other (see Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Míriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon, Hidden Tribes: A Study of America’s Polarized Landscape, “More in Common,” 2018). They find that about 25% of the population are committed and active conservatives, but only 8% are equivalently convinced Progressives. In my own survey results, approximately 80% of strong Democrats believe climate change and inequality are top priorities for the future, but only 40-50% of weak Democrats agree.

We have seen that no president can accomplish major goals without the broad support of the citizenry. In the current climate, candidates are being pushed to adopt the views of the most ideologically confident core of their supporters, which continues to leave out the majority of the country.

There are certainly some potentially unifying themes. Immigration and diversity are widely seen as a net positive for the nation. The support for them has generally risen during the Trump presidency. Most believe that climate change is a concern, though not a priority. But they are very skeptical of the Federal government as an agent of change, and widely prefer local and voluntary action.

A unifying vision needs to stress the importance of citizen activity and community, a theme that resonates with much of both the left and right. As Lincoln said in his first inaugural address, “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Above all, we need to work together to overcome our shared challenges. The president we need might do worse than to take this cue from Abraham Lincoln.

Page 23