Editorial/Op

That Was Political!

By  | 

An Editorial by Dave Freneaux

    I approached the word “Political” expecting to find a clear and accepted definition as a starting point.  Wrong.  There are as many definitions of “Political” and “Politics” as there are politicians and opinions.  Definitions speak to governments, social groups, businesses, and even churches.  My favorite, and the one that seems to be the most universally applicable, comes from Meriam-Webster and reads: “The total complex of relations between people living in society.”

    In short, EVERYTHING is political.  So my first question is, why are some things “called” political in such a way as to make them seem wrong?  I’ve heard the accusation “That was Political!”  Well, yes it was.  I suspect what that actually means is that their political “agenda” (see last week’s editorial) differs from yours.  Which leads me to my last question:  Can people and groups have differing political agendas and still get along?

    My answer is simple:  Yes, but they have to want to get along.  In our deep south, rural, conservative, bible-belt community there is actually very little that separates one “political agenda” from another.  In fact, our election campaigns are based on candidates struggling to find SOMETHING that differentiates them from their opponent.  That can prove to be difficult when they actually agree on 98% of the issues.

    So, let’s concentrate on that 98% agreement and remember that we should all be in this “For Central”.  Consider admitting that everything is political, but recognizing that the political “agendas” are not so very far apart.  Maybe instead of accusing the opponent of “Being Political”, both parties could lay their political agendas on the table, work together on all the things they agree on, and find a way to meet in the middle on the few points on which they differ.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *