Our country is divided. The number of Americans willing to examine both sides of an issue and separate fact from fiction grows smaller every year. Some argue that things were worse just prior to the Civil War and that we will work through this phase. But enhanced communication today has polarized the population, so the problem is much worse and more extensive.

The 2018 book Truth Decay, by RAND Corp. chief executive Michael Rich and Jennifer Kavanagh, provides convincing data showing that the difference between truths and opinions is blurred. Extreme exaggeration, alternate facts, misrepresentations and overt distortions of the truth, when repeated often enough, take on the air of veracity. The magnitude and velocity of misinformation is greater now because of social media and certain news outlets spreading sensational "breaking" stories. Most of us are convinced our truth is the only truth. And increasingly we come to dislike and even disparage those who disagree with us.

Compounding this is the growing lack of trust in institutions to provide honest answers to truth seekers. A Pew Research Survey found that most Americans mistrust the bedrock institutions of our society: business, government, media and religious/charitable entities — and trend lines are moving toward "less trusting." Online "fact checkers" are mistrusted and falsely accused of being funded by Democratic or Republican sympathizers.

Truth Decay warns that the principles of our democracy could be undermined if the warring sides become larger and ever more polarized. We will be less able to thoughtfully solve domestic and foreign problems because seeking consensus and compromise would be considered caving in to the enemy.

Politics and gridlock cause citizens to lose confidence in the government as a proper decision-maker, leaving problems unsolved. When a major crisis arrives, who can come up with an effective, consensus solution? Without the normal governmental processes to turn to, we may become vulnerable to a charismatic "savior" who can emerge as the best alternative. That person may have less regard for the rule of law, citizen rights or our founding principles. Forceful action may be viewed as more important than preserving our nation's values.

Rather than accept the present state of warring parties as the norm, Americans should consider problem-solving strategies. Analytic studies show that people are not swayed by arguments coming from the other side of an issue. The only hope, according to a report in the MIT Technology Review, is for correct information to be disseminated from one of their own. All of us, including national, state and local leaders, need to muster the courage to speak the truth regardless of the political cost.

Follow the example of the late Sen. John McCain.

You'll recall that during the presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain, a woman asked the McCain why America should permit an Arab to take over the country. McCain interrupted her with "No ma'am, no ma'am, Obama is a decent American family man." McCain did not perpetuate the lie or remain silent. Instead, he schooled his own side with the truth and thus probably did more to convince people that Obama was born in Hawaii than Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate. Democratic and Republican leaders should follow McCain's example.

Counter with the historic plea: Have you no sense of decency?

In the 1950's Sen. Joseph McCarthy falsely accused scores of people of being Communists. Using innuendo, he claimed without proof that Communists were in the military, government and Hollywood. Finally, in a Senate hearing, a courageous person under attack stood up and challenged McCarthy: "Senator, have you no sense of decency?"

That was a turning point. McCarthy's credibility never recovered. His barrage of unsubstantiated accusations increasingly fell on deaf ears. Start a #HaveYouNoDecency? hashtag. Use it to respond, for example, to those who claim that Sandy Hook mass killing of children was a hoax. If enough "have you no decency" messages get through, these bad actors may back off.

Don't enable the egregious falsehoods embedded in emails and social media.

If you are like most Americans, you receive an avalanche of exposé emails from friends. These friends simply forward emails that state "facts" with which they intuitively agree after only a quick reading of the headline. Studies show that the older and more conservative or liberal the recipient, the more likely that person is to forward the email without thinking.

They forward the emails and spread the lies without any effort to analyze the email's truthfulness. Some statements are so bizarre they defy logic. Even a cursory analysis by the reader would expose the falsehood. But instead, they simply press forward and send those emails to their lists of friends and contacts. That's how the lie contagion spreads.

So when you receive an outlandish social media post, send it back to the sender and the entire stream of contacts with the following statement: "Since you sent this post or email, I assume you vouch for its truthfulness and you now are willing to OWN it."

This may prompt a decline in your social media traffic and offend some friends — but you won't be offending American values of truthfulness.

These three simple actions just might help a little to preserve our democracy. Implementing them will take some courage on the part of leaders and those of us who use the internet. Are we up to the challenge?

Walter J. Humann is a Dallas business executive and civic leader. He is best known for creating the Dallas Area Rapid Transit system and helping desegregate Dallas schools. He served as a trustee of the RAND Corp. and currently serves on the advisory board of SMU's Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.