Remastered Introduction
As I mentioned in my last post, The Kaiser Take is deep into the Dog Days of Summer¹—with my wedding, honeymoon, and everything in between. So today marks the beginning of my first “remastered” piece.
The title of the article is fairly self-explanatory, and it’ll quickly become clear that the original was written shortly after the conclusion of the 2024 election. I chose this one to kick things off because I think it’s a great example of a piece that holds up over time.
After all, there’s never a shortage of need for thoughtful, rational, and respectful dialogue.
I hope you enjoy revisiting this article—and be sure to check out the updated conclusion, where I’ve added a fresh few thoughts for your consideration!
Dear readers:
With Thanksgiving behind us, the "Holiday Season" is officially here—a time often associated with joy, love, and quality time with family and friends. However, many people are finding it increasingly difficult to connect with others, including their loved ones, because of sensitive political differences. And it's not just about differing political views anymore; it's about the growing lack of respect and willingness to listen to those with opposing opinions. Unfortunately, this has become the reality in today's political climate. We have become so polarized in our beliefs that meaningful and respectful conversations seem vanishingly rare.
For me, this issue is frustrating on many levels. On both the macro and leadership scales, increased polarization and disdain for political opposition creates an environment where democracy becomes unsustainable and meaningful progress is nearly impossible. Too many elected leaders seem to think they can only accept results that are perfectly aligned with their ideal vision. They’d rather block a compromise and maintain a status quo they despise than give an inch to the other side. But the truth is, as much as we might want to believe otherwise, this kind of idealism only works in a non-democratic system, where policies don’t require consensus to move forward. And to be clear, I’m talking about something akin to a dictatorship. Idealists who advocate for hardline, uncompromising stances need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves: Is it truly possible to support the democratic process without learning to work with others?
But the issue isn’t just with our leaders; it’s with all of us. After all, leaders often take their cues from us, their constituents. I’ll be honest—most of my social circle is fairly left-leaning or some sort of anti-Trump conservative, and let me tell you, they weren’t at all happy when they woke up the day after the election. I can’t count how many comments I saw that were brutal in their criticism of not just Trump himself, but those that voted for him. Many of these comments seemed to group the 77+ million people who voted for him as racist, transphobic, anti-woman, and anti-democracy. Even if you personally believe these qualities define Trump, it’s incredibly short-sighted to assume that they also define half of the voting public. What’s more, many expressed a desire to completely avoid associating with people who voted for Trump, taking personal offense to anyone who did. And while I’ve mostly been critical of Harris/Democratic Party supporters so far, I want to be clear that those on the right have been guilty of the same thing, most notably after the 2020 election.
It’s natural to feel upset when our side loses or when our vision for society faces a setback. But we can’t let that anger consume us and lead us to believe the other side is always “out to get us” or that we should treat them as enemies. It’s never healthy to assume how someone feels or why they made a particular choice. If your goal is to increase support for your ideals, you need to persuade those who don’t share your position to see things from your perspective. The only way to do this is by understanding the real reasons behind their views. For example, a Trump voter might have faced real hardship during the post-COVID inflation crisis under the Biden administration. For someone struggling to make ends meet, issues like the January 6th insurrection or Trump’s views on social matters might take a backseat if the voter lost confidence in the Biden administration's ability to manage a stable economy. It’s not for anyone else to unilaterally decide that this voter betrayed their decency because they voted in a way that they believe to be in their own best interest.
If you still feel they made the wrong choice after hearing them out, engage in thoughtful, respectful debate. Show them you empathize with their situation, and offer your own reasoning for why your position might better serve their needs. If they still disagree, move on and talk about different things. At worst, you’ll maintain your relationships and find common ground in other areas. At best, you’ve possibly laid the foundation for something meaningful in the future.
Politics are important—individual liberties, sound economic policies, and strong national security all profoundly impact our lives. But none of these can be fully realized if we shut down dialogue with one another. If we do, we risk continuing down a path where we resent our neighbors, and our country suffers from a toxic, unending stalemate. That said, I remain confident and optimistic about the future. Our nation has weathered periods of intense political division before, and in this case, I truly do hope history repeats itself.
Remastered Concluding Thoughts:
My added thoughts here slightly reframe the main point of the original article. Upon rereading this piece, I couldn’t help but think about how the “Big, Beautiful, Bill Act” (BBBA)—and other major legislation in recent years—how they’ve been passed. As discussed in several other posts here on The Kaiser Take, the BBBA was pushed through using the filibuster-proof Budget Reconciliation process. By design, this process allows the majority party to bypass the need for cooperation from the minority, effectively sidelining nearly half the country’s elected representatives. The result is often a bloated, hyper-partisan bill filled with hundreds or even thousands of rushed and half-baked provisions.
And I’m not just pointing fingers at Republicans. Democrats employed the exact same strategy under the Biden Administration and completely shut out Republican voices during the passage of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)² under former President Obama.
If we’re ever going to make real progress on the issues that matter most—healthcare, immigration, and beyond—it will require meaningful cooperation across the aisle. The question is: who’s willing to be brave enough to demand that dialogue? It’s going to take someone in power with the courage to sacrifice a bit of their idealism—and their partisan edge—for the greater good. That’s the only way we begin to reverse this decades-long slide into political dysfunction and incivility.
As always, thank you for taking the time out of your day to read my work! If you enjoy the content, please consider subscribing!
Very truly yours,
James Kaiser
Footnotes:
Link to The Kaiser Take's Dog Days of Summer Article-
https://thekaisertake.substack.com/p/the-kaiser-takes-dog-days-of-summer
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed through the standard legislative process, which required overcoming the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate. At the time, Democrats held a filibuster-proof supermajority and were able to pass the bill with exactly 60 votes in the Senate. Despite the significance of the legislation, Republicans were not meaningfully included in the negotiations, and the final bill did not receive a single Republican vote in either chamber of Congress.
Share this post