Originally published by Randy Kessler on LinkedIn: Elections and divorce: Much the same?
While both elections and divorces are the end of an often lengthy process, both are in actuality simply the end of one era and the start of another.
Given our most recent presidential election, it occurred to me how similar elections and divorces are or can be. Some are amicable, most have at least some hostility and none are painless. And like a divorce, an election does not end the relationship. All voters are affected by an election, much like a divorce. But the more acrimony, the longer the healing process. Things said and done during the process sometimes make deep and lasting impressions. Many understand that going to court in a divorce case will necessitate verbalizing many feelings and cause further damage. Those of us involved in divorce cases know all too well that you can never “un-ring the bell” or “un-hear” something. So how do we avoid that?
We think about consequences. We realize that saying something just to achieve a goal, like winning an election or getting more money in a divorce may accomplish that goal, but at what cost? In the recent U.S. presidential election, the things said so hurt people on the other side (no matter which side you were on), that both side’s supporters will remember them for a long time. And this may have severe consequences. It’s not just hurt feelings. But like a marriage, our country is a union. And even when that union is divided, to maintain progress and success, we must focus on the benefits of working together. Just like divorced parents who must put aside their anger for the sake of their children. And that is harder if the process, the election or the divorce litigation, was ugly. People remember things, especially hurtful, negative, critical things and the more of those things there are, the longer the healing process and the harder it becomes to overlook what was said.
In the short term many feel the aggressive, and sometimes harsh, conduct paid off. The election was won, the divorce trial resulted in more alimony, etc. But the lingering anger on the other side, and probably on both sides, will take its toll. Anger festers and manifests in unexpected ways (people stop paying alimony, people protest and in general, argue more). Maybe the ends justify the means to some, but to me I wish we all had foresight enough to gauge what such tactics cause. If someone is entitled to alimony or custody, it should be decidable based on the facts. And if someone should be elected, the same should hold true. Harsh rhetoric unfortunately sometimes does indeed seem to motivate (people to vote, judges and juries to award more or less money), but wouldn’t it be better and feel better if we could always simply politely present the facts, and let the decision makers (voters, judges and juries) make a completely rational decision? But then again, we are all humans and rationality is not always our greatest strength. But oh how I wish it were. What a difference it would make.