Before you fly off the handle about Trump’s firing of the impeachment witnesses and his interference in Roger stone’s sentencing, you might ask yourself why 85% of registered Republicans still support him.

If you don’t have the answer to that – if you can’t conceive of it – then how can you fight what you don’t understand?

So why do all these Americans – parents, teachers, social workers, men and women, true patriots such as yourself – continue to not only support Trump but defend him with high emotion?

The answer is simple. There are two narratives in America. Depending on which you believe, you’ll see Trump either as a dictator or a liberator.

One narrative sees a collusion of senators and administration officials working together to run rough-shod over the constitution, trample individual rights, ruin the environment, and set up a ruling party toward the end purpose of establishing a dictator as its leader.

The other narrative sees a deep state conspiracy in which bureaucrats and officials at all levels are part of an ingrained liberal bias with the long-term purpose of undermining traditional American values and creating a socialist nation where individual rights don’t exist.

Why would someone buy into one of these narratives over the other? Why have you chosen to believe in one and not the other? And what if they are both true?

Our society is changing. But it is not changing at a steady rate. Every four to eight years we swing wildly from one philosophy of government to another, like the pendulum of a clock.

But, over decades the center point of that sine-wave is moving. Just as every year has summer and winter but over time the average global temperature is warming, so too we cycle between Democrat and Republican governments but the long term shift of society it toward the liberal.

Civil rights in the 60s, gays in the military in the 90s, Obama Care in the new millennium, all of these show a progressive shift from social conservatism to social liberalism.

The first interracial kiss on Star Trek in the late 1960s, broadcast and cable television programs with openly lesbian characters, and current talk of Medicare for all.

Only the most closed-minded among us would not acknowledge that society has continually moved toward the liberal over our lifetimes.

For those who see this a good, comfortable, and right, there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that Republicans are in collusion against these values because they are.

For those who see this as bad, uncomfortable, and wrong, there is plenty of evidence to support the contention that Democrats are in collusion against traditional American values because they are.

Some folks thrive on change. Others prefer stability. The ratio between the two is about 50/50. And so those that seek progress are seen as eroding traditional values by on half of the population, and those that seek to hold on to the best of traditional values are seen as fostering oppression by the other half.

Problem is, each side throws out the baby with the bathwater, to use a traditional admonishment. Change threatens everything or lack of change institutionalizes oppression. Which is it? Both and neither.

Some change is good, some change is bad. Protecting some values is good, protecting others is bad.

But you can’t focus the forces to bolster your side by picking and choosing. Only with the rallying cry of “change is good” or “change is bad” can you hone public passion into a spearhead or a hammer to pry things apart or seal them shut.

And as each side becomes a monopole, common ground disappears from the middle and the cyclic swings of alternate administrations become more a reaction to the previous administration’s swing than a new agenda forward.

But what is driving this escalation of wider and wider swings? The answer is surprising…

First, as a free society evolves technologically, social self-expression becomes more wide-spread and younger citizens see with their own eyes that the preconceptions of their parents are not true. And so, society, in general, liberalizes in terms of inclusion and in terms of social causes to protect the environment and protect the poor, the needy, and the rights of minority groups.

This creates that rising line of social change that moves the whole sine-wave more toward the liberal with each passing year.

Second, life spans have progressively lengthened (until recently) and the difference between the America of in the youth of our older citizens and the America of today has created an ever-increasing gap.

Think of climbing a hill. How far you can climb is determined by your life span. The longer the life span, the greater the gap between where you started and where you are now.

So picture now that increasing liberalization is not a line but a rising curve. And picture that life spans have been getting longer. Those Americans who favor change are thrilled (look how far we’ve come) but those Americans who favor stability are dispossessed (look what they’ve done to my country).

If I were writing this for a thesis I would say that the animosity between the parties increases or decreases in response to life span multiplied by the rate of social change.

Put in conversational terms, if lives get longer, the 50% who prefer stability are going to find the gap between their comfort zone and current society is growing. If lives get shorter, they will feel more comfortable because the gap is decreasing.

If social technology increases it’s rate of social liberalization, the 50% who favor stability will see their discomfort rise from this as well. If the rate decreases, they will become more comfortable.

For the 50% who favor change, the exact opposite is true. So society becomes a push me / pull you – a balancing act where both parties try to maximize their comfort level by increasing or decreasing how much social change occurs within one’s life span.

The clear and present danger is that with the huge ongoing increase in social medial liberalization, and the increase in life span, we may reach the point where the gap between the comfort zones for the changers vs. the stabilizers swings so wildly from one administration to the next that the force is great enough to split apart our bipolar nation into two monopoles, leading to a new civil war. It is not at all out of the question.

So what can we do about this?

First some good news in terms of keeping our nation together….

The rate of social change has slowed. This is not due to the current administration but to the fact that everyone now has social media in their hands and access to many venues in which to express themselves and congregate.

And so, over the next few decades there should be a lessening in that force in the social equation.

In addition, life spans have stabilized and even declined a bit. We seem to be reaching a threshold in the duration of the human body, even under the best conditions and care.

And so, the gap between the good old days and the world of today will cease to increase.

As a result of these two factor, the future for America is a far less contentious one, down the line, in the next few decades.

But the danger is that we will never get there because we’ll pull ourselves apart while all these tidal tensions are at their maximum. All it takes is one precipitous single act by either party’s administration that could spark the whole political powder keg to blow up and shatter our precious Constitution into shrapnel and scrap.

Finally, then, how do we avoid this? Moderation. Rather than pushing the pendulum farther to the left or the right each administration cycle, both parties need to seek to bring it back to the middle.

Don’t put people in power who will play politics like a football game – forcing the other side back and back until you score, only to have them do the same to you once they have the ball.

We aren’t in a situation where one side can win against the other. If we both push hard enough, everybody loses. This is no game.

Moderation and patience are needed. We need to give it a rest for a while, at least at this most crucial time an place. We need to get past this point of maximum stress on our social framework.

After that, sure, go to it – duke it out. But if we continue to do that now, all may be lost and that shining beacon of democracy for the world my be snuffed out by our own hands.

So before you go flying off the handle in response to current events, consider the long game. Think about what we’re all really after here. And consider how our immediate reactions can fuel the fire that just might bring it all down.

Comment from a reader:

False equivalency, again. While we tout the myth of freedom in our Constitution, it excluded virtually everyone but white males. What you cite as ‘liberal’ inroads have been long-fought battles (sometimes literally, like the Civil War, or Civil Rights in the ’60’s) to equalize the balance for everyone besides white males. In that regard, the center point needed to move. If ‘traditional’ American values means returning to national racism, sexism, gender inequality, that’s not something many of are willing to accept any longer. It already went on too long, and we’re still fighting it. Enough already.

My response:

It is the battle cry of “false equivalency” that divides us. We are equivalent – not equal, equivalent.

Further, the Constitution is a living document. That’s why it can be amended, as proscribed within its own framework. It was never intended to be a perfect document, but an evolutionary document born of revolution.

Societal “norms” are changing all the time. To judge norms of the past by today’s standards is “equivalent” to expecting a baby to act like an adult.

Further, your assertion that traditional American values means returning to national racism, sexism, and gender inequality, is simply wrong. None of my friends that support Trump and prefer traditional America values are racist or sexist or believe in gender inequality or they wouldn’t be my friends.

Example, I have a friend who worked in social services for years helping immigrant families. She really cares about them. But she also believes that the USA doesn’t have enough resources to invite the whole world in and provide those services to all. She believes in legal immigration with quota limits that reflect our ability to help.

The first rule of being a lifeguard is not to let the drowning person take yo down or you are both lost. So for her, a compassionate woman, she naturally cares for her family, community, and nation first before she endangers all of that to reach beyond our border and help.

But she and I disagree. I believe we have the resources to help illegal immigrants as well. Yet I must admit there is a limit to our resources. So her argument that we must try to stop the uncontrolled flow with limits we can sustain makes a great degree of sense.

But is she racist? Not at all. She frequently posts memes on Facebook against racism. Yet she supports Trump because, among other reasons, she doesn’t want so many people climbing on the boat that it capsizes and we all drown.

As I said, I don’t agree with her assessment of how much we can and should help, but a racist? Not a chance. She’s spent a lifetime helping others of all races. Yet she supports Trump.

Do you begin to see how branding Trump supporters as racist is the most dangerous “false equivalency” of all?