This morning I was at an impasse.  I had no definite inclination to write.  That is rare.  There is always something of import, either a local personal item of interest, something I care about or perhaps one of the political and social inanities of the Trump administration that begs for comment.

I had no idea where to start, how to make some sense of a yesterday’s email exchange between friends.  The expression of viewpoints took place between individuals who are well acquainted.  The topic, or the pretext for the discussion was a request for admission to the USA by a young woman/mother who in the past was involved with ISIS.  A variety of positions were taken.  These ranged from full amnesty and admission, a bona fide second chance with no strings attached, to a qualified permission to re enter, to the suggestion that she should be subject to prison time, or even death at the hands of her one time ISIS compatriots.  As a former member of ISIS this would be no more than she deserved, etc.

The discussion quickly segued into a stalemate between those who are in line with the Trumpian hard opposition to immigrants in general, and against Muslims in particular, and those of us who advocate a immigration policy qualified by a degree of compassion.

As a member of this community I participated in the email exchange.  Politics, the exercise of ones vision for “what is right” has life changing consequences for individuals, so I felt duty bound to have a voice.  There was little or no common ground between the opposing view points that I could tell.

Then this morning while reading I was offered insight into why civil exchange of political views often fail at this time in our country.

Here is what I read:

People feel bound by democratic elections
only when they share
a basic bond with most other voters.
If the experience of other voters
is alien to me,
and if I believe
they do not understand my feelings
and don’t care about my vital interests,
then even if I am outvoted
by a hundred to one,
I have absolutely no reason
to accept the verdict.

Democratic elections usually work
only within populations
that have some prior common bond,
such as shared religious beliefs,
and national myths.
They are a method to settle disagreements
between people
who already agree
on the basics.

Excerpt, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow
By Yuval Noah Harari, p. 249