Can We Disagree without Being Disagreeable - Not so Certain

On 20 January 2017, in Washington, DC, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president. Some people rejoiced. At these words, I did as well: “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left. And the factories closed...The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you.” Judging from the Democrat and progressive left's response the news was injurious to their flawed psyche. In layman's terms, the losing party, its followers and anarchists within our midst, disagreed with the outcome.

This being the case; now, can we disagree without being disagreeable? Not so certain! But it is essential, in a national sense if the American people are to ever hold Washington politicians accountable. ‘United we stand, divided we fall’ and that means all. Amazingly as it may appear, the political sways dividing us haven’t simultaneously stopped Conservatives (GOP) or Liberals (Democrats) from enjoying high rates of re-election to Congress or stopped the growth of government power, or spending — the DC Representatives preferred standard of measurement. Yet, along with the inauguration, the Women’s March, and other festivities came acts of violence designed to disrupt Trump’s celebrations. Vehicles were set ablaze, windows smashed, businesses destroyed, people pepper sprayed in the face, police and citizens hit with rocks, bricks and chunks of this that or the other. In the aftermath, the violence seems to be condemned more on a partisan basis than a universal one. Does this not have to change? 

Should we count on President Trump or the Democrats in Congress or the progressive left rioting in the streets to change things? If one believes Snow White was an animated character and not a living, breathing Southern White Supremacist's, then a change is possible. But don’t count on it. The liberal left and the rioting protesters, (among them are anarchists) benefit from the discord. What about the news media? No, we better put reconciliation on the back burner. If not, be prepared for long bouts of depression and counseling sessions with psychotherapists.

All this being said; that doesn't mean one has to compromise any agenda or issue. It simply means to give those with whom we disagree the respect they deserve, to treat them as individuals and not stand-ins for “the other” group or gender or race or party or whatever. It means supporting President Trump when he’s right and opposing him when he’s wrong. It means our politics must be people and principle-based, not partisan. All this being said brings me back to the question: Can we disagree without being disagreeable? Still not so certain.