Speaking as a self-identified conservative, I nevertheless find numerous no-one-size-fits-all issue priorities where I might just as readily characterize myself as libertarian, or even … gasp … socially progressive in the model that predated present-day neo-Marxist control of the Democratic Party.
Regarding the latter category, rather than see it self-destruct without appealing messages or leadership, which currently seems very much to be the case, I greatly favor thoughtful contests of ideas and ideals afforded by a two (or three) party electoral system over permanent ossifying domination by one that invites unopposed tyranny.
Nevertheless, politically hyper-polarized circumstances make it difficult to engage many very nice people in thoughtful issue discussions that courteously and caringly explore common concerns and exchange different perspectives.
All too frequently there is an unfortunate tacit agreement not to discuss politics, or a desire to avoid contact with those “disagreeable” people altogether.
Maybe that avoidance involves a very personal relationship that evolved through a common history of special experiences, trust in integrity established throughout difficult times, shared values and dreams for our lives and children.
And maybe we miss out on getting to know someone better and learning new things from them, exchanging experiences and ideas regarding common interests, discovering they are fun to be with, realizing that there might even be a couple aspects of their political opinions and priorities that make a little sense.
Stepping back from such philosophical impasses, might it often be possible and preferable to separate the term “politics” from government party labels that attempt to set universal terms and measurements of agreement?
Like abortion, for example.
No issue, in my view, is more personal or less addressable by universal standards than wrenchingly painful determinations involving termination of a pregnancy based upon specific biological stages or a rigidly fixed number of days of fetal development and/or pre-natal assessment of a pre-born child’s physical or mental survival prospects independent of parental special care-giving circumstances and family impact burdens.
As for compassion for those who deserve it, I seriously doubt that any one political persuasion is innately more helpful or heartless than another regarding empathy and assistance to those who truly need help through difficult periods or lifetimes due to circumstances beyond their control.
Having said this, as individuals most of us might agree to favor assistance programs that encourage and incentivize those with capabilities to help themselves to do so rather than freeloading on generous charity.
Here, let’s also recognize differences between bedrock guarantees of equal rights for everyone enunciated by America's founders in the second paragraph of our nation's Declaration of Independence and equity of outcomes for all regardless of effort and merit.
Differences between equality and equity are fundamental and crucial: differences between assuring opportunities and results; between equal treatment under the law and fingers on scales of justice; between unbiasedly judging people's behaviors and achievements as individuals — or stereotypically as members of groups; between rewarding those who strive for achievements and those who don't.
And can’t we all agree that provable citizenship should be a prerequisite in selecting elected leaders at all levels of government?
In modern-day America, isn’t it logical to presume that if requiring means of identification for an individual to obtain a driver’s license or board a commercial airline, it’s also not unreasonable to expect at least the same for all voters?
This assumes, of course, that we can agree about limiting voter rights to citizens who enter the country legally.
Few appeared to question that sovereign principle until recently — one predating a prevailing federal and sanctuary state open border policy that has since admitted tens of millions of “undocumented” entirely unvetted migrants suspected by many as a Democrat strategy to expand their voting rolls.
Nevertheless, many, including me, recognize and deeply respect millions of technically illegal migrants — most particularly from Mexico and Cuba — who have proven over past decades to be among America’s most dedicated, virtuous, and vital contributors fully deserving of rights to remain.
Sadly, current laws account for no such warranted distinction.
I’ll freely admit to holding both some pessimistic and optimistic viewpoints regarding events that are transforming the American democratic republic free enterprise landscape.
For example, I believe that far too much power and control have shifted from states to unaccountable unelected federal government bureaucracies that establish ill-fitting one-size rules enforced through central collection and redistribution independent of special regional needs and priorities.
In any case, I bet if we all tried harder to reach across our own ideological aisles, we would discover many key issues to agree on, or if not, at least agree to disagree more intelligently and politely.
Larry Bell is an endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston where he founded the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and the graduate space architecture program. His latest of 12 books is "Architectures Beyond Boxes and Boundaries: My Life By Design" (2022). Read Larry Bell's Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.