Can't we all just get along?

Three Sisters, Central Oregon, near Sisters

My opinion is most likely, no, we cannot-- IF we have to have our way, IF there are deep, core differences in our values, IF one of us wants to unfairly take what another has (which could be freedoms or material goods), IF we feel threatened, IF we see our cause as greater than anyone else's, IF we will win at any cost-- then we often cannot get along. We have to find a way to live with that fact.

Even in tribal peoples, basically they have/had someone who ran things. That was the one who decided if they fought a war, moved their camp, forced someone from their group. In some tribal situations, there would be one leader who ran daily life while another ran the spiritual. 

There was a reason a leader was agreed upon, maybe even chosen from birth-- humans don't get along real well. We are individuals and even for those raised within a tribe, those differences can still lead to conflict.

In a family, we see where some get so angry at others that they no longer speak. Agree to disagree means having to let something go-- not just stopping arguing for the moment but literally letting go the fact that two don't always agree. Some people simply have to convince others their way is right and the only way. Some will die/kill to further their causes and there is no way they can accept someone who sees it otherwise as having equal validity.

As a culture we have a Republic where we vote for leaders and what do we see happening-- one group trying to rig the system so they win power through whatever method it takes. Do they care if they have the will of the majority? Absolutely not and currently are gerrymandering state after state to win elections with the minority. Their latest plan would have had Obama winning 51% of the popular vote but losing the Electoral College.

Two recent examples of how we don't see things the same way:

When I watched the President's inauguration, I thought he gave a powerful but actually generic speech. He didn't nail one side or the other but said we should all respect each other, understand we all have value. There was more, but basically it seemed like a no-brainer. 

That wasn't how the right wing saw it. They saw it as an attack on their values. It was hard for me to understand. They wanted him to agree with them, agree with the principles on which so many of them ran and lost. When he did not, when he espoused other principles, it enraged them and some, like Ted Nugent, are now talking revolution again. Don't believe me on that? Listen to them on their punditry shows. 

Another example was when the right wing grilled Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Benghazi. She was using logic and the tea party types who challenged her were ideologues. When she got frustrated enough, she said, why does it matter why it happened. What matters is what we can do to make sure it doesn't again. Good Lord, you'd have thought she just suggested crucifying Christ again.

Their purpose was political, partisan power. They kept harping on four people died. Three of those who died were paid to protect. They were warriors. They were mercenaries you might even say and in this case in the pay of the CIA or State Department. They were there to do what they could to keep the Consulate and Ambassador safe. The Ambassador died from smoke inhalation, almost a fluke death as nobody deliberately tried to shoot him. One of the operatives did also. The other two from rocket fire. 

Exactly what was intended by the attack is not yet known. What we can pretty well determine is that the arms they used, their training, what is happening in Africa is a result of despots being removed. Sadly leaders like Gaddafi kept order at a terrible price in terms of human abuse. Now their weapons are being spread among terrorist organizations and Mali and Algeria are also feeling the effect.

That was logic. An Ideologue instead says-- if I was president I'd fire you for those four deaths. That guy doesn't care what happened. He cares that he can pontificate (a guy incidentally who will NEVER be president). One of the men Kerry addressed the next day admitted he was out there posturing but had not attended briefing meetings. 

That's the two sides of this-- one to posture and scream. The other to look at what we do now. How do they get along? A clue-- they don't.

Theoretically when we vote, doesn't that mean it's settled until the next election? Not hardly.  The arguing wouldn't be so bad if we could even apply the principles that just won that election to see if it works. It doesn't happen. 

We don't even see the word fair equally. It has become a partisan term that infuriates some to even hear. To them fair is a liberal word. If they think of it at all, it's what is fair to their own interests. I hear them talk about taxation without representation as if voting for something automatically means you get your way even if you didn't win the most votes.

Jupiter in proximity to the moon 

January 21 Central Oregon

As a nation we should agree that we want uniform voting regulations, places to vote, counting of the ballots, methods for campaigning. You know we do not and some feel that by limiting who can vote, they assure their idea of fairness. How do you get along with someone who is talking revolution when you believe in voting?

I know it's the ideal that we can come to a meeting of minds. I just don't think it's actually possible and am not sure why not. Is it brain chemistry that has two people looking at an image of a hungry person and one sees a need to do something effective that will help while the other sees a person who brought on their own problems and is now trying to get help they don't deserve.

It's amazing that we don't all see life the same way but we do not. Even with friends or family, sometimes we have to agree to disagree and look for other areas we can agree.

There was a book out some years back that said when you get into a situation where it's a win/lose; then your best option is to not play. Get out of the argument/debate because when one person has to lose, it's going to lead to trouble. The point of the book is to go where there is a win/win in any conflict. It sounds good and might work in personal relationships (or maybe not). It is harder when it involves deep, heartfelt core beliefs.

 Metolius River in January-- an energy place

So rather than having this all be negative, I thought I'd present some of my actual ideas on how we can get along. If you read this far and have others, I'd appreciate you adding them in comments.

Accept you won't convince everyone you are right (you might someday find you were wrong). 

When irked with someone, try to find those places where you can agree. 

Understand that everybody, even those you disrespect, is trying to do what works for their lives. 

Don't feel you need to give up your point but don't expect to always win. 

Avoid getting angry-- that doesn't win points-- with them or you. 

Be involved in the choices the nation is making because head in the sand doesn't cut it and leaves no way to whine with honor later. 

Vote for leaders who come as close to your core beliefs as possible-- it won't be all the way.

When your way doesn't succeed, work on other areas and wait for a new day.

Find things to think about besides all that's wrong with the world. The alternative is a good way to an ulcer.

Look for options in getting to a certain goal-- sometimes the goal is the same but the method is the problem and we can get hung up on details.

And when it's family-- love each other. Don't remember every grievance. Expect growth in them and yourself. 

Find activities that make you happy and where you can forget all that's gone wrong anywhere in the world and in your own life. 

Spend time in energy places and pull them into you for times when you'll need that.
For parents, when you see your children showing anti-social behavior, possibly fascinated with the macabre to an unnatural level, take some action. I think a lot of these tendencies to see violence as the solution start very young; and if parents would work with experts, try to deal with their reality not their wishes, maybe, some violent events could be avoided.

Finally on getting along-- when out in public-- be alert and aware what is around you. Pay attention to warning signs, noises, sights and it might be smoke in the air. Don't be oblivious to the weather, activity by others because when we can't get along, sometimes it turns ugly fast. I am not saying get a gun because that's not as good a solution as just staying aware. Never think it can't happen to you-- others thought that too. We can't always avoid violence but we can have a plan in our mind for what we'd do if we have time-- life is such that we won't always and that's just a reality and not unique to our time in history.