In November 1968, candidate Richard Nixon began to wrap up a speech by saying “And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support.” Nixon used the term to describe citizens who did not take part in demonstrations and were not, in his way of thinking, counter-culture.
People of a Certain Age remember the phrase—silent majority. I did not take part in demonstrations, nor did I think of myself as counter-culture, so, according to Nixon’s definition, I would have been a part of the group. But, in terms of my attitudes and beliefs, I was not.
Still, Nixon’s taxonomy, dividing the voluble from the silent, accurately, if very generally, described the American polity. One couldn’t really tell what most of the people were thinking because they were not talking in noticeable ways. That division rings true today.
New York Times columnist David Brooks has written about More in Common, “a new international initiative set up in 2017 to build communities and societies that are stronger, more united, and more resilient to the increasing threats of polarization and social division,” first registered in the United Kingdom. Researchers for More in Common have written a typology of the American electorate, defining seven groups across the political spectrum.
Brooks wrote, “It won’t surprise you to learn that the most active groups are on the extremes—Progressive Activists on the left (8% of Americans) and Devoted Conservatives on the right (6%).” In his column, Brooks shares his two “big takeaways” from the study, the second of which is “ideas really do drive history.” He asserts that both Progressive Activities and Devoted Conservatives “organize around coherent philosophical narratives” which, he says, are both visions of a just society and “about who needs to be exorcised from society.”
Much of the rest of Brooks’ column describes differences and intensities of beliefs, much of which is predictable. What caught my eye was this: “roughly 2/3 of Americans, across four political types, fall into what the researchers call “the exhausted majority.” 61% say people they agree with the need to listen and compromise more.” (My emphasis.)
President Nixon, in 1968, asserted that there were two groups, the assertive and the silent. It is not much of a stretch to suggest that the same two groups still exist, though named a bit differently. A significant difference between then and now is that both groups are subjected to “noise” 24/7 in which the committed reinforce their biases and the rest just want some peace and quiet. These are the exhausted majority.
Brooks notes that, unlike the Progressive Activists and the Devoted Conservatives, the “people in the exhausted majority have no narrative.” He concludes by saying, “I don’t know what the next political paradigm will look like, but I bet it will be based on abundance not deficits; gifts, not fear; hope, not hatred.”
Now, here is a challenge worth the effort to meet: to construct a “coherent political narrative” for the exhausted majority!
To start the process, we might propose a few ground rules:
- Ignore all negative political advertising. Millions of dollars are spent dishing dirt on the assumption that you and I, as voters, are influenced by these messages. Let’s foil the dirt dishers by resolving to explore what candidates say they stand for, specifically, not in generalities like “I support lower taxes.”
- Start watching TV news at the start of the second half of the show. “If it bleeds, it leads” is the industry standard for news most times. Where are the reports about progress, service, successful endeavors? In the second half, if at all, often after the weather.
- Engage where you can make a difference. Let the D.C. types snipe at each other and let us attend to the local opportunities to make the places and communities where we live better. James and Deborah Fallows have written Our Towns about the small cities and communities that have confronted change in a positive way, citizens working together without regard to political labels. It is a worthwhile read. Haven’t most of the creative developments in the history of humans living in harmony with each other started small, locally, in neighborhoods and communities?
- Perhaps construct a matrix detailing areas of agreement across political boundaries. List a variety of questions like “do you believe that all citizens should have equal access to the opportunities of the community?” and “do you believe in freedom of speech?” that people would answer and then talk with each other about their responses. My bet is that there will be more than 90% agreement among the discussants about what we believe and the values we share.
- Decide to be agreeable even when we disagree. Overwhelm any negative types with kindness and respect.
And, we might also recall that the message projected by the last President to be elected by winning over 58% of the popular vote was “Morning in America,” and the President who won more votes than any other person in American history assured us “Yes, we can.”
Wouldn’t you like to help construct a coherent political narrative for the exhausted majority built around mornings and possibilities?
Daniel E. White
November 11, 2018