Welcome
Today's political landscape can seem an inescapable pit of polarization. Like many people, I have become exhausted with the hateful or inflammatory rhetoric used by most politicians. It seems as though any good person can't make it in politics and as such, there aren't any left. This can be depressing, as the problems our country faces don't stop just because political parties can't agree on a solution. This leads to a political gridlock where parties think no solution is better than a solution given by the other party.
Now I know that polarization is an issue that can quickly snowball into bigger problems. It can make people more likely to use personal insults and attacks over productive speech. It lessens the ability to see common ground and reach compromises. But polarization doesn't have to be bad. Polarization is, in some ways, a form of diversity. Stark as the contrast might be between two sets of ideas, polarization is just that - two sets of ideas. I strongly believe that a diverse set of ideas is what makes this country strong, and that we need to stop demonizing those who hold political beliefs different from our own.
That is what brings us to what I believe is the true issue that our country faces today. It doesn't take a political scientist to see the problems that polarization has caused. But I believe that the way to end the negative effects of polarization isn't to try and silence other views, but rather elevate the voice of the voiceless. By diversifying the voices we hear, the power the polar opposites hold on our attention diminishes, and with it we can see that there are many more things that unite us than divide us.
That is my dream with the Silent Centrist. I may not have the influence or the pervasiveness of others, but what I do have is my voice. And, even if only for my own sanity, I will raise it against the powers that divide us. I will remain silent no longer, but rather use my voice to unify in whatever small way I can.
We can go farther, together.
Let's go forward, together.
Let's go forward, together.
Finding a More Perfect Union
Feb 4, 2026
With a broader vision of what government is and how it exists and functions on a basic level, I think it’s time to discuss what a national government should look like. I understand that this can be a very subjective exercise, and where some may be willing to compromise, others may not. But by taking the framework that we’ve already established, I believe you can find a functional government that can appropriately exercise its power.
The nature of power tends towards seeking more of it. While generally seen in a bad context, it doesn’t always have to be. As a charity that provides food to the hungry grows, so does their reach to give more food to more people. Government must be designed to maximize well-being for the most number of people while minimizing advantages that benefit specific individuals or groups. This is where democracies shine – they are designed to work for the benefit of the people, rather than the individual. Given the way our American democracy works, what follows goes under the assumption that we agree on a general level in the democratic process.
If we look at the dials that we can adjust, I have always believed that we will fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes those dials can hold. If we look at liberty, for example, it can be easy to think that giving citizens complete and total liberty is the best course of action. While an idealized world might operate under those conditions, given human nature, that can’t always be the case. Rules and restrictions on liberties establish a framework in which humans can grow. If there were no traffic laws, it would be extremely difficult to move around. Without laws, no one could be at fault for driving 'dangerously,' because everyone would be entitled to their own absolute liberty. On the other end of the spectrum, a completely controlled society could completely eliminate traffic by total restrictions, but at the cost of everyone’s ability to move around. The best-case scenario is some level of regulation - rules that everyone agrees to follow to maintain order and calm, which work as a benefit to everyone.
Ideally these regulations would have maximum benefit with minimal restriction on liberty. They would also likely be more regulated in areas where more people are affected and where the effects can be felt greatly. Even the most fundamental liberties would likely be restricted in extreme cases. Freedom of expression, arguably the most fundamental right, does not mean that you can say what you want without consequence. Slander and libel, or making damaging and false statements, can cause real harm. Threats to personal safety and wellbeing can lead to intimidation and other unfair situations. Perjury, or lying when under oath, undermines the very essence of the justice system.
Together, justice and fairness act as the balance to those liberties. The entire reasoning for regulations should be to keep things fair. If you purchased an insurance policy which offered certain benefits in case of injury, and you sustained that injury, you would expect that insurance company to pay out that claim. By regulating contracts, you can ensure insurance companies honor their obligations, while also preventing insurance fraud. However, punishment must fit the crime. Jaywalking on an empty street is not the same as lying on a loan application, nor is it the same as stealing. Justice is about balancing the situation with the appropriate response, which should be designed to prevent that crime from happening again. By creating a fair and level playing field you establish order and peace. Where there is order and peace, we thrive as a society.
Together, justice and fairness act as the balance to those liberties. The entire reasoning for regulations should be to keep things fair. If you purchased an insurance policy which offered certain benefits in case of injury, and you sustained that injury, you would expect that insurance company to pay out that claim. By regulating contracts, you can ensure insurance companies honor their obligations, while also preventing insurance fraud. However, punishment must fit the crime. Jaywalking on an empty street is not the same as lying on a loan application, nor is it the same as stealing. Justice is about balancing the situation with the appropriate response, which should be designed to prevent that crime from happening again. By creating a fair and level playing field you establish order and peace. Where there is order and peace, we thrive as a society.
Arguably the biggest threat to peace and order would be physical security and safety. Protecting that peace and order from those who wish to disturb it is essential. Typically, this happens when people seek power, money, fame, and other forms of influence. Protecting yourself from those outside the government, like foreign governments or foreign-based organizations, as well as dangers from within, like those trying to implement extreme and radical changes within the government, should be at the forefront of all governments.
Up to this point, I truly believe that both major political parties can come to some level of agreement on the previous dials. While there will likely be heated discussions on how much regulation or on the specific punishments for different crimes, I think that deep down there is more that we agree on than disagree.
Where that changes is in the fifth and final dial: balancing individuality and communalism. I first want to make a distinction that I am not talking about communism, the form of government with common ownership. I’m referring to communalism, or a community-centered approach to society.
American (and most Western) culture, while it holds aspects of communal identity and connectivity, is a largely individualistic society. We prefer privacy, stick to ourselves, and generally have a “go out and follow YOUR dream” attitude. Everyone is special and, if you work hard enough, you as an individual can reach great heights. And there has been a lot of good that has come from that. I believe it is fundamental to our success in technology and even culture. But there’s something missing.
What we lack is a balance between those individualistic values and a true sense of community and belonging to a whole larger, and perhaps to some extent, more important than ourselves. This sense of togetherness has been in decline over the past century. Accelerated first by materialism and then put into hyperdrive by technology and social media, we have access to everything yet lack connection to anything.
You don’t need to go far to see this. Consider your own situation. How many people could you call that would come to help you move? How many people do you feel comfortable expressing your own interests with? How many houses down do you need to go to before you don’t know basic information, like professions or interests, of your neighbors? How many houses down can you even give their full names?
Individuality, at the cost of community, can be detrimental to society.
I believe that we, together as a government, together as a people, must put more emphasis on saving our communities before we have any opportunity to come back together. Many of the changes necessary can be difficult. Often this requires people to put in more effort than they feel they get out. But just as the ocean is simply a collection of drops of water, so too do our own efforts on an individual level come together to form the greatness of the American community.