Featured
Beyond Vanilla and Chocolate
What we lose when political identity leaves no room for a middle ground
If I asked you right now to choose between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, you probably would not need much time to think. I would choose vanilla. I always have. It is not a difficult decision or something I seriously reconsider every time I order ice cream.
But imagine that choosing vanilla meant you could never order chocolate again. You could not even admit that chocolate sometimes looked good. You would be expected to defend vanilla whenever someone criticized it and surround yourself only with people who made the same choice. Suddenly, it would no longer feel like a simple preference. It would become a side that you were expected to support no matter what.
Obviously, politics matters much more than ice cream. Still, I think something similar has happened to our political climate.
Get Sarah Coyne’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Being a Democrat or a Republican can now mean much more than supporting a certain set of policies. It can become a label people use to judge your entire character before actually knowing you. Once someone learns which party you support, they may assume they know what you believe about every issue. There is less room to disagree with your own party, agree with the opposing party, or simply admit that you do not have a perfect answer.
When I was younger, I never thought political affiliation could cause social isolation or completely define a person. I assumed people could disagree, argue their positions, and eventually find at least one area of agreement. That may have been a simplified view of politics, but now, even trying to find common ground can be treated as a weakness. People feel pressured to stay completely on one side, as if listening to someone else means abandoning what they believe.
This summer, through Democracy Summer and my time in Washington, D.C., I began thinking more about how this division affects the government’s ability to accomplish anything. Before then, I assumed issues such as veterans’ affairs would receive support from both parties. Instead, even issues that seem as though they should bring people together can become caught in larger political battles. The conversation stops being only about whether a bill could help people and becomes about which party will receive credit or appear to have won. Legislation stalls, while the people waiting for help continue to wait.
I am not arguing that everyone should suddenly become politically moderate or meet at the exact halfway point on every issue. Some issues are too serious for an easy compromise, and people should not have to give up values that genuinely matter to them. Finding a middle ground does not mean believing in nothing. It means being able to speak with someone who thinks differently without immediately deciding that the person is ignorant, hateful, or impossible to reach.
These conversations seem to become especially harsh online. It is easy to insult someone when all you see is a username, a profile picture, and one opinion you strongly disagree with. You do not have to think about that person’s family, background, or experiences. Face-to-face, it is harder to reduce someone to another member of “the other side.” You begin to see an actual person, even if you still think that person is wrong.
A respectful conversation may not change either person’s mind, but that does not make it pointless. Sometimes the value comes from realizing that two people with opposing political beliefs may still care about many of the same things. Both may want safe families, stronger communities, and a government that actually works. The disagreement may be about how to reach those goals, not whether those goals matter.
We are never going to agree on everything, and democracy was not designed with that expectation. But it cannot work if every disagreement becomes a reason to stop listening. We may never all choose the same ice cream flavor. That is not the point. The question is whether we are still willing to sit at the same table.
