Our political debate has fallen into a highly problematic and false binary. It goes something like this: You can agree fully and wholly with the policies of one side or the other and must fully and wholly condemn opposing ideas as meritless or evil.
It’s either-or.
In a diverse nation of 340 million people, this perceived binary doesn’t represent the actual political diversity of our nation. And, even worse, this way of thinking is highly dangerous for our democracy which must develop effective public policy to serve the American people. That argues for working together on the most pressing issues for the American people, while acknowledging and respecting differing viewpoints.
We are at a pivotal moment in America’s democratic development when we need strong and principled elected and civic leadership to counter this either-or mentality. As has been the tradition throughout American democracy, leaders must seek opportunities to find crosspartisan, pragmatic solutions to the pressing issues of our times, including
American voters aren’t aligned in two binary camps, as the rhetoric would have us believe. Our highly segmented populace isn’t either-or. Assuming that it is undermines the health of our democracy and threatens to divide our nation even further.
Close to 90 million voters – or almost 37% – of eligible voters, simply sat out the presidential election in 2024, while while 77 million votes or 31.4% of the electorate(which consisted of 245 million eligible voters). Vice President Harris earned 75 million votes, or 30.6%. In April 2025 NBC poll 38% of respondents believe that neither political party “fights for people like” them. And there are more registered independents than members of each respective political party. About 48% of respondents in a 2024 Gallup poll identified as independents, with just 28% as Republicans and another 28% as Democrats.
Our highly segmented populace is simply not ‘either-or’. Assuming that it is undermines the health of our democracy and threatens to divide our nation even further.
When leaders pursue an either-or approach, they reject the foundational need for compromise which is central to reaching sustainable solutions that address the needs of most citizens. Recognizing this, Founding father Alexander Hamilton stated at the dawn of our nation that “a spirit of compromise and a concern with order were needed to balance the quest for liberty.”
An either-or approach creates a dangerous cycle in which public policy swings between two often extreme positions, rather than toward long-term policy solutions driven by compromise and the common good of the nation.
Elected leaders and citizens alike must reject undemocratic behavior even within their party and join forces with diverse coalitions focused specifically on protecting our democracy during this challenging time.
There are also needed systemic changes that will reverse the either-or mentality. One example is addressing gerrymandering, which skews voting and encourages moves toward ideological extremes, not the center.
Two caucuses should be applauded for their efforts to move away from binary thinking into pragmatic problem-solving representing the diversity of views around the country. Both efforts have successfully elevated the nuance and diversity of views within each party and across the spectrum, to find solutions that have broader support and serve the interest of all Americans.
The House For Country Caucus (4CC) is a bipartisan group of veterans in the U.S. House of Representatives who focus on initiating, advancing, and passing into law priorities that matter for our nation and the world. Likewise, the bipartisan House Problem Solver Caucus, is “committed to advancing common-sense solutions to key issues facing our nation.”
While it is understandable to view the political landscape in a binary fashion during a national election, Americans must return to crosspartisan, effective, and dynamic policy making once the election ends.
Political leaders of both parties bear a responsibility to pursue bipartisan collaboration on issues where there is a divergence of views, and – more importantly – on issues related to the functioning and well-being of our democracy, which should never be subject to a partisan divide.
