[Prudence]

A lot of "polarization" comes from refusing to acknowledge shared values and focusing exclusively on the differences. Abortion's already been mentioned at least twice, so let's take that as an example. Perhaps the democratic party has as one objective ensuring that abortion remains a legal medical procedure. Perhaps the opposite side of the aisle has on objective ensuring that abortion is made illegal. Described in that fashion, they are polar opposites. And if that's where we remain, what is the point of any of this?

An effective leader is able to highlight the shared values from seemingly disparate viewpoints and direct the energies from all sides toward accomplishing those mutual goals. In the case of abortion, both sides presumably wish to reduce the number of abortions. There might not be agreement on how to accomplish that, but a shared goal is a start.

It's a concept that's broadly applicable. What is the shared goal in Iraq? Or in foreign policy in general? At the end of the day, most of us want jobs that pay enough for us to meet our bills and have a little discretionary left over. We want appropriate food, shelter, clothing, and access to services. We want to feel that we have some equality of opportunity - that if we have the necessary skill and put forth the necessary effort our reward will be similar to that of others with similar skills and effort. We want to feel safe in our homes and not worry that our kids might be killed or molested at school.

That's a lot of commonality that's all too readily ignored in our national obsession with aligning ourselves with "causes".