Jeffrey Dunster

I was reading an article in the Economist about political segregation, "The Big Sort," as they put it. They point out that America is becoming more polarized and tribal, clustering in closed communities of like-minded individuals. The author (I could not see who the author was) fears this behavior will break down the communication between voters and make compromises harder to create.

This could be, but this voluntary segregation is not a new phenomenon; our country was built on it. The initial Pilgrim settlements were homogeneous, exclusive, and autonomous. That was the aim of the participants. Over time, states were formed with striking differences from one another. This was the attraction of early America; freedom to live as personally desired, without superseding "oppressive" oversight by any one religion or king.

However, as our Nation matured, conformity became the rule, reaching its height in the '50s. Ever since then, we have been fragmenting again, and I see it as healthy. There is one problematic difference between our early diversity and now; we are not taking personal responsibility for our government, our laws, or our own conduct. We are not restoring our original balance of powers that permitted diverse governments of communities and states. We are instead vying for control of the Federal government with the intent to fix everyone else's problems with our superior solutions.

"Because Americans are so mobile, even a mild preference for living with like-minded neighbours leads over time to severe segregation.... Over time, this means Americans are ever less exposed to contrary views.... Americans were the least likely of all to talk about politics with those who disagreed with them."

Unlike the Pilgrims, who were "missionaries" to one another, debating and refining their personal opinions through continuous examination and experimentation, we are much more isolationist now. We espouse "tolerance and diversity" by avoiding differences and different people, not by seeking to understand them. This is now compounded by our recent history of consolidated powers at a Federal level which tries to homogenize differences, as opposed to the Founder's original design of mutual respect and cooperation for the common good, on as limited a basis as was feasible. That is why state's rights were so important to many founders; they wanted to maintain personal control and a safe-haven for their unique ideals while fostering cooperation and security at a national level.

So if we are recreating the segmented society of the early United States, so be it. But if each faction is merely "tribalizing" to gain enough power to dominate the Federal government and thus force its views upon others, then our country is in trouble.