After my previous two articles, I’d like to clarify: I’m not saying we should retreat from the political arena, refrain from sharing opinions on issues we feel strongly about, passively accept mistreatment, look the other way in the face of injustice, forsake our favorite causes or stop working to resolve social problems.

Some would argue that even talking about politics or hot-button social issues is poor etiquette. That getting involved in causes is the province of people afraid to look too closely at their personal issues. That marches, rallies and boycotts are inherently divisive. That civil discussion is a waste of time since most of us already have our minds made up. That special interests control our government to the point where voting is futile, so why bother?

I would respectfully disagree with all of this. Participating in the political process is not only a right, but one of our responsibilities as citizens. Supporting a good cause beats sitting in front of our screens playing one video game after another. Too many problems need addressing for us to move in the direction of self-absorbed apathy and disconnection. We do need to stay engaged.

But could we please, please stop the vitriol? If we really want to change hearts and minds, we must stop the name-calling, the scapegoating and the demonizing.

The Constitution guarantees our right to petition our government for the redress of grievances, whether that involves writing letters to our representatives, attending town hall events or visiting lawmakers in their offices. But I suspect our elected officials – being human – will pay more attention to a politely-worded letter and listen more carefully to constituents who refrain from shouting them down while they’re trying to speak.

Marches and rallies are a time-honored way to call public attention to an injustice. But can we do this without violence and destruction of property? I think we can agree there is a huge difference between rioting or looting on the one hand, and a peaceful protest in which organizers have obtained all the proper permits.

If a company treats customers badly or engages in business practices we believe to be immoral, a boycott allows us to vote with our feet and our pocketbooks. But it wouldn’t hurt if we let the offending company know the reason for the boycott in a letter, email or tweet that has been edited to delete profanities.

I enjoy watching TV programs in which people discuss the issues of the day. But could our political pundits learn to speak one at a time and stop interrupting each other constantly? Recently I’ve taken to switching the channel as soon as commentators start talking over each other.

I have nothing against people wearing t-shirts and sporting bumper stickers in support of their favorite cause or candidate. But I’m with Her and Make America Great Again are one thing. Cheeto is a vulgar pig and Trump that Bitch are another.

Name-calling and other rude behavior stop genuine discussion and problem solving in their tracks. Lashing out only gives others an excuse to ignore our concerns, discount us and dismiss our issues. For those of us who claim to be people of faith, spewing snarky insults gives people ammunition to call us hypocrites and declare they want nothing to do with either us or our religion.

Being civil, on the other hand, carries strategic advantages. After all, we want people to take us seriously, right?

In my own case, I actually have changed my mind now and then over the years, even on some fairly big issues. When I did so, it was because someone presented factual information in such a way that I could listen without becoming defensive. It also helped if the other person was willing to hear my side of the story, shared their personal experience of the issue in question, or showed me how I could come around to their way of thinking without sacrificing values important to me.

But I can promise I have never, EVER changed my mind because someone called me names, insulted me or tried to convince me I was a terrible person. All yelling and character assassination ever did for me was encourage me to dig in my heels or walk away. People of all political stripes have let me know I’m not alone in this regard.

In our current environment, we are so often presented with only two alternatives – be “in-your-face” reactionary or be apathetic. I’d like to see a third option. I’d like to see all of us eliminate the name-calling, the trolling and the flaming, and have a rational discussion about serious issues.

We need to replace our desire to be right with a desire to solve problems. That way, instead of Our Side winning, perhaps we can all win.

I know some will accuse me of false equivalence, but I’m going to say this anyway: People of all political and ideological persuasions have been guilty of contributing to the divisiveness tearing apart our social fabric.

During the 2016 election, I noticed most candidates for public office spent more time telling us why we should not vote for their opponents than they did telling us what they planned to do themselves if elected. This was true whether the candidate was a liberal, socialist, progressive, moderate, centrist, conservative or libertarian.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Republicans who spent eight years obstructing and filibustering former President Barack Obama at every turn now lecture Democrats to “give Trump a chance.” Meanwhile, the same Democrats who decried obstructionism now focus on how to give the Republicans a dose of their own medicine. Democrats pounced on candidate Donald Trump’s “woman problem” while conveniently forgetting or just plain denying that former President Bill Clinton was accused of similar misdeeds. Trump supporters complained that Obama issued too many executive orders, but now cheer when Trump does likewise.

Liberals who wish to vent about the election results – or find memes with which to shoot down conservatives – can join Facebook groups such as Americans Against the Republican Party, The Angry Liberal, Amending the Constitution so Corporations Can’t Buy Elections, or Teanderthal Party, which declares “Trump’s a jackass” and pledges, “I will defend my country from all enemies, both foreign and Republican.” Conservatives mad at liberals for being mad about the election can join Laughing at Stupid Things Liberals Say, Liberal Logic 101, or Occupy Dimwits, which proclaims, “Dimwits support the Occupy movement, Obama, Hillary, socialism, Marxism and communism.”

Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of promoting fake news, overt propaganda and “news” of questionable accuracy: Daily Headlines, American News, IHaveTheTruth.com and Conservative Tribune on the Right; Occupy Democrats, Bipartisan Report, Real Time Politics and Freakout Nation on the Left. People on both sides can live entirely in their own bubble, if desired. Left-leaning folks have MSNBC, DailyKos, The Nation, Jezebel, AlterNet, Slate and Mother Jones. Those on the Right have FOX News, American Spectator, CNS News, The Federalist, The National Review and the Drudge Report. While none of these latter media qualify as “fake news,” it would be fair to say they are decidedly biased.

The comments sections that follow online news articles and blogs overflow with trash-talk of both political stripes: I’m going to say this real slowly so you un-ed-i-cated rednecks can understand it. … Keep it up and maybe you can turn being a flag-hating pansy into an Olympic sport. … I can see why you vote Dumbocrat – it’s easier than working. … Is that true or did you hear it on FAUX News? … I can’t even understand what you’re trying to say, it’s so stupid.

Finger-pointing and blaming others has proven to be an equal-opportunity pastime. Ask conservatives who or what is responsible for the problems in our society, and they’ll blame labor unions, illegal immigrants who suck our social system dry when they’re not stealing jobs from hard-working Americans, Muslims out to bring sharia law to our shores, and mothers who work outside the home while others raise their children. Ask liberals the same question, and they’ll point to corporations that bust unions, xenophobes who deny entry to this country for refugees with well-founded fears of death or persecution in their own countries, Christian extremists who would impose their own version of sharia law on America, and men who want to keep women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

People on both sides seem to subscribe to the notion that if we can’t beat our opponents in an argument, we can always fall back on name-calling. Conservatives talk of Obozo, $hillary, elitist granola-munching Libtards, Welfare Queens, tree-hugging environmental wackos, woefully deluded do-gooders and snowflakes. Liberals talk of the Bloviater in Chief, Rethuglicans, racist-sexist-homophobic bigots, right-wing fanatics, extremist ideologues, the lunatic fringe, tea-baggers and alt-right fascists. Both sides fling words like idiot, moron, nut job and Nazi with abandon.  

Liberals and conservatives compete for the most in-your-face bumper stickers, t-shirts, ball caps and coffee cups. At the online Breitbart Store, conservatives can order their very own Border Wall t-shirt, Protected by 2^nd Amendment doormat, RINO Hunter jumbo coffee cup or Safe Spaces Are for Snowflakes bumper sticker. Not to be outdone, the online Northern Sun store offers liberals a White House Alternative Facts t-shirt, He’s Not My President button, Putin-Trump Make Russia Great Again bumper sticker, or a refrigerator magnet which announces, “Mommy when I grow up I want to help smash the white racist, homophobic, patriarchal, bullshit paradigm too.”

Demonizing of opponents knows no ideological boundaries. People who favor gun rights accuse gun control advocates of wanting to render law-abiding citizens defenseless in the face of rampant crime. Gun control advocates portray people who favor gun rights as heartless monsters who don’t care about tragedies such as Sandy Hook. Christians portray secular humanists as hedonists out to strip society of its core values, while secular humanists accuse religions (including Christianity) of being responsible for most wars. Some Web sites seriously speculate whether Trump, Obama or even Pope Francis might be the Antichrist referred to in the Biblical Book of Revelation.

Perhaps Chicago Tribune columnist Mary Schmich best summed up the free-floating animosity when she observed: “Everyone needs someone to loathe. … I mean some group, some class, some club, some clique, some collection of humans who can be disdained and despised simply because they wear the wrong ID badge. … We all gnaw on prejudices against groups that threaten who we’d like to be or think we are. Sometimes our prejudices explode into cruelty, even if words are the only weapons in our attack.”

Of course, if I’m completely honest with myself, I must acknowledge my own contribution to the divisiveness. No, I haven’t broken windows or set buildings on fire at a demonstration, and I don’t make a habit of spewing profanities at people. But I’ll plead guilty to passing along Facebook memes that subtly – or not so subtly – make fun of people whose opinions differ from mine. I’ll cop to sometimes feeling smarter than, and even a bit morally superior to, those poor misguided people who disagree with me on various issues. I’ve promised more than once to stop posting political memes on Facebook, only to renege a short time later. I’ve finally settled on a promise to post at least one cute animal video for each political post. Good thing there are A LOT of cute animal videos in cyberspace.

During election season, my husband and I rationalized that our candidates had to “go negative” during their campaigns because their opponents did. Thus justified, I cheered when “my” candidate got in a good zinger during a debate or attack ad. I was quick to pounce when a candidate on The Other Side said or did something “wrong,” and equally quick to make excuses when my own candidate behaved the same way.

As a Christian, I’ve even been guilty of getting snarky about other Christians. When a fellow believer expresses an opposing view, I’ve said, “Do they read the Bible they’re thumping on?” One day in Sunday School class, someone asked the group, “Do you think [well-known person] is really a Christian?” I replied with the proverbial wink-and-nudge, “By their fruits we shall know them,” and was gratified when several people laughed. I should probably deposit a $20 fine in Rachel Held Evans’ Jar of Contention for that last one.

I don’t believe it’s “false equivalence” to suggest that each of us look for our part in a problem. Admittedly this is much less fun than wallowing in the mud hole we all seem to be submerged in at the moment. On the other hand, no positive change is going to happen and no real problems are going to be addressed effectively until we all can do this.