"[O]nly tolerance for opposition and conflict can guarantee the survival of political freedom."

–Susan Dunn, in the introduction to The Social Contract and the First and Second Discourses by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

It’s been a long campaign season. I’ve wanted to blog about what I’ve been thinking and feeling, but couldn’t quite put words to it until a friend gave me the above quote.

On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, I’m thinking about how politics came alive for me this year. That’s the good news. The election has been the topic of conversation in the car on the way to the kids’ school, on walks with siblings, in email exchanges with extended family, at networking events with strangers, even with my gynecologist during an annual exam. I watched presidential and vice-presidential debates, SNL skits, and nominating speeches at both conventions. I listened and read what the pundits had to say, about ethics and economic policy and foreign policy experience.

According to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, the number of registered voters is at an all-time high, at 153.1 million or 73.5% of the eligible population. 

The bad news is that contempt and self-righteousness often follows when one side is sure that the other side is wrong. There have been plenty of opportunities on both sides, from politicians volunteers and spectators, to declare certainty on an issue or rightness about character or sureness on qualifications. After all, doesn’t each of us want to be right?

So instead of being curious and exploring new territory with others, I found myself defending, about why I am voting for a party or a platform or a candidate.  A colleague at a networking function came up to me after we did a straw poll of how people were voting, and said jokingly, "Friends don’t let friends vote for ….."

And then, afterwards, I was struck by how outrage–at Bush or Palin or Wall Street or you name it–creates intense polarities, where all one can think of is "You are so wrong and I am so right." Anger fans the flames of more polarization. It is easy to villify someone who you think is not like you at all.

There is a saying that I love from a coaching training I took a few years ago. It goes something like this: "Everything that is in the world is also inside of each of us."  In the context of a political campaign, it means that what you love about one candidate and what you hate about another candidate is something that resides in you, if only a thimbleful.  It is what makes us human.

What I fear is that in the climate that we have created together around politics and running for public office, the best people will not want to run in the future. They will be too smart to put themselves through the ringer, to open themselves up to the abusive remarks that are more suited to American Idol or The Biggest Loser or Dancing With the Stars.

What I hope is that we will all stay engaged in the political process after the voting is done, to have our voice heard not just when it determines who will take office, but when it influences what policies will get implemented. There is a reason why our system of checks and balances has lasted so long.

Susan Dunn, who I quoted at the beginning of this post, talks about unity as something that polarizes and divides. It sounds like a paradox, but what I think she means is that unity often comes from the idea that "if you are not for us, you must be against us." In the name of unity, dissent can be easily quashed.

Tomorrow is election day in the U.S. May we not only learn from each other but have compassion for our own humanity and tolerance for a view that is not ours.