Although America is certainly a divided nation, the divisions between the various tribes are not as great as you might be led to believe. Yes, the social and political debates are loud and intense, but the fringe, rather than the mainstream, gets most of the attention.

A study done by the group “More in Common” discovered “The Hidden Tribes of America.” The researchers discovered that a small group (8%) in the liberal wing and a smaller group (6%) in the conservative wing are the ones who consistently shout, post, and vote while the rest of America is often exhausted by all of the rhetoric.

Here is an interesting contrast. On the one hand, these two groups hate each other and disagree with each other on just about every topic. On the other hand, they are very much alike. Both groups are mostly white, educated, and politically active. They always vote and give time and money to political campaigns.

But here is the relevant fact: the two groups combined only constitute 14% of the American population. In other words, the 86% of most of us watch and listen to these two groups argue and criticize each other while ignoring the many points in common we might have.

This shouldn’t be a surprise to you if you have been listening to my commentaries for any length of time. In the past, I have talked about various points of agreement. For example, Dirk Philipsen made the argument many years ago that you could fill a room with Tea Party members, Occupy Wall Street activists, and concerned Americans and find agreement. He says you would find people concerned about concentrated power, out-of-control change, and concerns about a government that no longer represents the people.

After this divisive election season, we need to find a way to bring the American people together. But we won’t bring people together if we let the two fringe wings of the political spectrum dominate all our discussions.

A recent research paper concluded that first responders are more likely to die by suicide than in the line of duty. The Rudman White Paper on Mental Health and Suicide of First Responders is a chilling look at the sobering statistics of the lives of men and women who protect us each day.

The paper explains that, “Police and firefighters, when compared to the general civilian population, are at heightened risk for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicide.” We should remember that people in these professions “have front row seats to the horrendous aftermath of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, violent domestic 
disputes, traffic accidents, and more.” In fact, one study concluded that police officers witness 188 “critical incidents” during their career. No wonder their rates of PTSD and depression are as much as five times higher than the rates within the general population.

Another reason for suicide is the reality that so many first responders have prior military experience. That means they are piling onto their career more “incidents” after already having a previous career rife with trauma. They may be strong, brave, and resilient, but they are only human.

Another concern is the unwillingness for men and women in these professions to seek help. Often they want to avoid the shame and stigma that might come when they ask for counseling. And these same barriers often prevent families from talking openly about the suicide of a loved one.

One obvious solution is to break the silence that surrounds this issue of first responder mental health. That is why I wrote this commentary. We need to support our first responders and ask them to get help so they can continue to keep us safe.

Most Christians understand that the problems facing America are not going to be solved in Washington. But it is noteworthy when a sitting U.S. Senator says that, “Politics Can’t Solve Our Political Problems.”

That was the title of a commentary by Senator Ben Sasse. He believes that the tribalism in our nation has a deeper source and is tied to loneliness in America. We are relational beings and want to be in tribes. He observes that, “the traditional tribes that have sustained humans for millennia are simultaneously in collapse.” Those would be family, friendships, and communities of worship.

At the core of this is loneliness in America. It is not a new problem, a quarter century ago I wrote a book with the title Signs of Warning, Signs of Hope. One of the chapters dealt with a “crisis of loneliness.”

A book we often quote on our radio program is Bowling Alone written by Harvard social scientist Robert Putnam. We no longer are involved in community. We often move and have few friends. We have few shared projects and belong to fewer civic groups.

On the other hand, we don’t want to be left out. We don’t want to feel the “same isolation we felt at the edge of the cafeteria or as the last kid picked for kickball.” So we yearn for a group (often a political ideology) as the basis for our intimate connections. Our cable news tribes offer a common experience.

To reverse these trends we need to read his new book, Them: Why We Hate Each Other�”and How to Heal. In his commentary, he shares how he and his wife “put down roots” in a small community and became friends with people from every race and income bracket. We must find ways to replenish the social capital and reverse the tribal conflict in our culture.

A study by the Manhattan Institute explains why it is so hard for middle class families to make ends meet. The author, Oren Cass, distilled his research down in a Twitter post. “In 1984, the typical male worker could cover a family of four’s major expenditures (housing, health care, transportation, education) on 30 weeks salary. By 2018 it took 53 weeks. Which is a problem, there being only 52 weeks in a year.”

Christopher Ingraham wrote about this in the Washington Post, saying “This chart is the best explanation of middle-class finances you will ever see.” The chart shows the annual expenses for a family of four and plots on top of that the median male income. The margin between income and expenses gets smaller each year until the annual household expenses exceed the median male income.

The chart in the report helps to explain why families feel the financial pinch. The cost of basic necessities has increased faster than male income. Until recently we have had a booming economy with a record-setting stock market. But many families are still struggling to bring in enough income to cover housing, health care, transportation, and education.

The research focuses on male earnings because historically men were responsible for providing for their families. In the past, they were often the sole breadwinners. Today they are still seen as the primary providers for their family. Oren Cass concludes that the typical male worker a generation ago, “could be confident in his ability to provide for his family not only the basics of food, clothing, and shelter but also the middle-class essentials of a comfortable house, a car, health care, and education. Now he cannot.”

That is why it has become more and more difficult for families to make ends meet.

One of the key debate techniques for people promoting critical race theory is what might be considered linguistic arm-twisting. A social justice warrior might say, “If you say you’re not a racist, that just proves you are a racist.” How do you answer this charge?

Greg Koukl was on my radio program to talk about how to respond to various religious and political claims and statements. He referred to this debate technique as the “Kafka trap.” In his novel, The Trial, Kafka presents a totalitarian world in which a man is arrested and accused of a crime. When he protests that he is not guilty of a crime, the state argues that his claims to innocence shows he is guilty.

You can probably see the verbal sleight-of-hand being used by activists who argue everyone is a racist. If you admit to being a racist, then you are a racist. If you deny you’re a racist, then you are also a racist.

The “you’re a racist either way” is a classic example of the Kafka trap. The thought police in our society today have rigged the system. It’s a “heads I win” and “tails you lose” debate technique. The presence of some people who are racist does not argue for the belief that all people are racist and trivializes true racial bigotry.

Koukl recognizes that attempting to banter with such a person would likely be ineffective. Someone who really believes that offering counter evidence is nevertheless a racist might not be open to reason.

However, if you want to point out the problem with the argument, you might use it back on him or her. “Do you know what social justice means? Of course, I do.” You can then respond, “That proves you don’t. No one who really understands social justice thinks he understands it.”

Don’t fall for this linguistic trick. It is illogical and irrational.

Two weeks ago, I used the wealth of Elon Musk to illustrate the size of the national debt. If you took all his money and assets and used them to try to pay down the debt, the impact would be negligible.

Apparently, the UN has a better idea. David Beasley is the director of the UN’s World Food Program. He said that if Musk and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos gave up two percent of their personal wealth, they could solve world hunger. That would work out to be $6 billion to help 42 million people.

One observer noted that the UN program had already raised more than $8 billion and yet didn’t solve world hunger. If money were the only factor, they should be well on their way to eliminating hunger.

Most billionaires would ignore the statement by David Beasley or feel shamed about their untold billions. But Elon Musk is not your typical billionaire. He said that if this UN organization could describe on Twitter how $6 billion will solve world hunger, he would be ready to sell Tesla stock. “But it must be open-source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent.”

Beasley offered to provide a plan if they could meet privately. We shouldn’t be surprised at the response. The UN has been notorious for wasting vast sums of money. Feel free to do an Internet search on the various investigative reports on how the United Nations spends the money it collects from member nations.

As I have discussed in previous commentaries, world hunger arises from many other factors such as regional politics, civil war, limited roads, and infrastructure, along with weather patterns and the environment. Merely writing a check to the UN won’t solve those problems.

One question I hear too often is: Do you think we will ever have fair elections again? The question assumes we had fair elections in the past (not always true) and assumes that the current changes being made in election laws in state legislatures are not enough to fix the problem.

If we could design an electoral system that would make it easy to vote and hard to cheat, what would it look like? Here are a few key principles.

First, go back to in-person voting in each state. Read any of the books written about voter fraud. Most of the examples of voter fraud come from absentee voting and early voting. Voting in person in the privacy of a voting booth eliminates fraud and coercion.

Obviously, some people cannot vote in person. But the altered rules implemented because of COVID concerns should not be repeated. State and local officials have eliminated nearly 21,000 in-person polling places that were active in the 2016 elections.

Second, require voter ID. This eliminates the possibility of identity theft. On my radio program we documented the stories of people who went to the polls only to find out that someone already voted in their place. The newly passed voter integrity laws provide a free photo voter ID to anyone who needs it.

Third, maintain a much better chain of custody. The fewest number of people should be able to handle these ballots. Ballot harvesting invites fraud and even coercion. And sometimes too many people have access to ballots once cast.

Many of these ideas were proposed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform founded by Jimmy Carter and James Baker. They were good ideas twenty years ago. They are good ideas today.

As the year of 2021 is starting to wind down, we have seen the education debate take some unexpected turns. The year began with teachers and their unions using their political influence to prevent or delay schools reopening. As this year is ending, we are seeing more and more parents protesting at school board meetings.

The election in Virginia last week is but one example of a nationwide phenomenon of parents wanting to reassert some control over the education of their children. Americans sometimes ignore political battles that seem abstract and distant until it affects them. Health care policy didn’t seem that important until the Affordable Care Act was passed and some of the new policies started to affect them.

School closures were harmful for children, but it also provided parents with a shocking look at what their kids were being taught. And they began to understand why their children were often reading and doing math below their grade level.

When parents started expressing their concern about prolonged school closures, teachers and school boards resisted even though the risk of children getting seriously ill from the virus was extremely low. Then they started hearing some of the off-mike comments teachers and school board members made about “crazy parents” and how “they just want their babysitters back.”

For other parents, the final straw was the letter by Attorney General Merrick Garland instructing the FBI to work with state and local law enforcement. And there was the letter from the National School Board Association suggesting that protesting parents might be designated as domestic terrorists.

These protesting parents may become a significant political force in the 2022 elections because of their concern over what their children are learning in school.

Last week I talked about the cancel culture on college campuses. I ended my commentary with an encouraging action by Professor Robert George at Princeton who sponsored a lecture that had been cancelled at MIT. The typical reaction to that news has been, “That’s great, but that is the exception not the rule.”

While that is true, there are more and more examples of people willing to push back against the cancel culture mob. The most visible example these days is Dave Chappelle. We can’t support his gross humor, but we can support his desire to push back against the trolls trying to push his series off Netflix.

Following up to the attacks, he reminded everyone that the cancel culture mob has canceled Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling along with lots of people who aren’t celebrities who have been attacked for saying “Gender is a fact.”

Another example is Bill Maher. He is criticized because he is weary of a younger generation acting like they are victims. More recently, he argued that words matter and that many words like hate, victim, and phobic have been completely misused.

Bari Weiss (who has served as the op-ed editor at the New York Times) came on CNN to push back against the host about all the cancel culture offenses. We may disagree with her on many issues, though I do have a copy of her latest book on How to Fight Anti-Semitism.

We should also support Boston Celtics star Enes Kanter who is one of the few NBA stars to criticize China. This Muslim from Turkey has spoken out about slave labor and the two million Uyghurs in concentration camps.

As Christians, we might not agree with any of the people I just mentioned, but we should support their right of free speech. And perhaps we should learn a lesson of courage from them.