One of my favorite teachers in high school once told me “You can pick your opinions, but you can’t pick your facts.” However, as the Republican National Convention has demonstrated, this wisdom is no longer in effect. Whether it was calling the President a secret muslim or mangled immigration statistics or an inflated business record, the speakers at the RNC seemed lock and step out of tune with real, undeniable facts. But, unlike most politicians, who’s careers would have been leveled by such hilarious gaffes, the speakers at the RNC received vehement applause from the attendees. Pandering isn’t a strong enough word.

However, I’m not here to fact check the RNC. More qualified, intelligent people have already done that. I’m here to ponder what does this mean. What does thousands or rabid Republicans chanting “Lock Her Up” signify for the greater realm of political discourse and rhetoric that makes or breaks a democracy’s success?

The short answer is doom, destruction and the apocalypse. Joking aside, democracy is an effective mode of government because it allows for the resolution or problems or conflict without violence or destruction. For example, let’s say my people are being beaten up and violated by police officers, bosses, the courts, so on and so forth. Democracy provides me the rights and power structures to petition my cause and get my oppression lifted through legal act. Instead of having to blow up the mail boxes of those aforementioned authority figures, I can use peaceful, legal means to resolve my problems. No more civil wars, no more terrorism and violence, just voting and support. Of course this is a theoretical ideal I suggested, but I would argue it retains real world importance. A stable democracy allows for greater sociable stability than say a dictatorship or mob state because of the avenues of resolution.

However, these democratic structures are completely dependent on two things: marketplace of ideas and the ability to receive ideas and ideologies antithetical to your own. The first factor refers to the power of ideas and ideologies to gain traction in the public sphere and become popular based on their truth and effectiveness of rhetoric or argumentation. For example, the proliferation of civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s represented the accession of the ideology of social justice to the mainstream political discourse based on the power of its rhetoric and the brutality of its truth. Without a marketplace of ideas, the power of the individual to choose the “truest” ideology wouldn’t be present and the state would become a single party dictatorship. The second is the more difficult of the two as it requires an increased amount of empathy. The ability to understand another person’s viewpoint allows for the ability to compromise and negotiating with another group to solve a problem. Without this empathy, mob rule would allow the dominant ideology to suppress and destroy any and all who disagree, which doesn’t entail freedom. Empathy also allows for greater resolution as it provides an avenue to understand and cooperate despite one’s background or beliefs. However, without either of these factors, democracy cannot and will not function properly.

So, when people say government doesn’t work or that Congress is broken, the lack of the marketplace of ideas and political empathy is why. Either major political party seems bent on delivering promises and protections to their groups rather than forming a coherent ideology or argument based around philosophical justification. For the Republicans, it means keeping white men in power by abolishing trade deals and keeping immigrants and LGTBQ citizens out. Whereas, for the Democrats, it means opening society up without offering adequate protections to those hurt by progress. Neither of these platforms are factually strong nor rhetorically strong (although the Democrats seem more willing to advance the rights of the oppressed and the individual, it should be noted, which is a plus), and therefore, fail to provide a solid “good” idea in terms of governance. On the second factor, empathy. The lack of ability for Democrats and Republicans to work together and see eye to eye as seen in increasingly pandering news organizations such as Fox News or Vox or in Congress itself not even preforming its most nominal duties, represents the demise of empathy, and therefore, the ability for comprise and cohesion in governance. The only ways we can preserve our democracy are clearly failing.

We now live in an “identity state.” A state where parties and factions are based on similar people wanting to use government for their own purposes rather than a creating a more beneficial and just place. A state where those who are different are expunged from the greater discourse because of a lack of conformity. A state where otherwise rational people lose all sense of cohesive logic and knowledge in a desperate attempt to justify their self appointed demagogues who operate with no restraint.

Usually, now, after predicting the end of days, I would suggest some sort of recourse to keep the proverbial bus from going over the proverbial cliff. However, there is no suggestion or policy to rally for, no single person to vote for (although I would say Hillary is the less toxic of the two major candidates, just saying). We are suffering from a crisis of conscience, an epidemic not easily treatable by any one thing or action. Instead, we need a change of attitude. We need to be less hostile to those we oppose, be willing to accept other’s viewpoints, and more critical in our analysis of current events.

But, it’s a lot easier say than it is to implement. For those that are systematically oppressed and targeted, it’s hard to find sympathy in the one stomping on your neck with a combat boot because you differ from them. It’s hard to see eye to eye with someone who hates who you are and what you represent. It’s nearly impossible to have a dialogue with someone who doesn’t want you to even be alive. These are real, practical concerns that can’t be so easily brushed off and that must be respected. However, to come to peace and work together, both sides most come to a center point to discuss terms and conditions. One must put aside their differences to see the commonalities we share if we want to truly stay committed to the radical experiment the founding fathers set out on hundreds of years ago.

Looking over this, a lot of what I’m writing about seems like dumb, hippie bullshit. “You just have to love one another, man.” That’s a fair critique, but it fails to assail the main point that society can’t continue to function by dividing itself in two and yelling about how the other half is filled with evil people. You can’t run a PTA meeting, let alone a country of 300 million people, with that mindset. If you want a better, safer country, if you want a more effective, just society, then you’re going to have to come to terms with your opponent and bury the hatchet for the greater good. Peace and reconciliation is the only way any society can survive and function.