Our politics are driven by a curious psychological dynamic, as I described in my book, America’s Crisis of Values. Liberals and conservatives take the position that their side is right and the other wrong. Only when the other side is eliminated will “goodness” prevail. Believing this, each side digs in and conflict escalates to the point where nothing good can be accomplished.

Does all this leave you feeling “politically homeless?”

“Politically homeless” is a phrase Jim Wallis uses in his new book On God’s Side when he discusses political paralysis around the issue of ending poverty, but the phrase applies widely. Politically homeless is the feeling we have when we observe political polarization and the assumption that we have to accept one side’s view or the other side’s view.

How about the common ground?

What are the two sides on poverty? Wallis describes the liberal-conservative split this way: When analyzing poverty, conservatives stress the “cultural factors that can cause and further entrench poverty in regard to weak family structures, educational performance, work habits and experience, or substance abuse; and they observe that having children outside of marriage is a huge factor in creating and sustaining poverty. Liberals stress the policy matters and the need for well-paying jobs, better education, quality child care, stable housing, and affordable health care.”

Usually these positions are presented as a choice: We must accept one position or the other, but not both. “But,” say Wallis, “why are we forced to choose between these two agendas? Why is it either/or? Why not both/and?” Politically homeless is how he and others feel when they observe the either/or debate but know the answer is both/and. Each side has part of the solution; together, they are the solution

What about you—do you feel politically homeless?

Do you agree there are essentially two choices?

What would a common ground solution look like?

Please leave a comment below: