Where We Agree—and Why It Matters for America’s Future
THE FXBG ADVANCE WEDNESDAY 7/15/26 AFTERNOON READ
By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST
For nearly 250 years, we have lived under a Constitution that challenges us to build “a more perfect Union.” We have not always lived up to that challenge, but we have done enough to be proud of: preserving the republic through civil war and depression, expanding civil rights to people long denied them, and building institutions that helped defeat fascism and contain nuclear war. That long record is a reminder that when we pull together, we can do big things.
Today, though, we are at risk of forgetting that shared story. Our politics often tell us that we are hopelessly divided, that the “other side” is our enemy, and that compromise is weakness. If we keep thinking and acting that way, the unintended consequences could be severe: a slow decline in our democracy, weakened institutions, and a nation less able to face threats that don’t care what party we belong to.
In my recent writing, I’ve criticized MAGA extremism, defended compromise, and warned that our democracy is at risk. Many Trump supporters—and Trump himself—see the world very differently. Yet if we look closely, we can see real areas of agreement on what is wrong, and serious divergence on how to fix it and how to treat each other.
We agree that our democracy feels fragile. Polls show large majorities of Americans believe political violence will increase and worry that the system may fail. We agree that economic stress is real: housing costs, health costs, stagnant wages, and communities hollowed out by change. We agree that our media environment often amplifies anger instead of understanding. And we agree that government should function, not lurch from crisis to crisis.
Reasonable people on the right and left also share a basic concern about external dangers. Climate change, pandemics, nuclear risk, and predator nations don’t ask whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or independents. They test us as one country. If we fail to find ways forward together—on energy, resilience, arms control, alliances, and the rule of law—the unintended consequence is not just louder arguments at home. It is a weaker America in a harsher world.
There is one line that should not be partisan at all: no political violence, from anyone, for any reason. On that point, Americans across the spectrum say political violence is unacceptable, even while many fear it is on the rise. That needs to be a hard rule, not a suggestion. It means refusing to excuse violence when it comes from “our side,” rejecting leaders who flirt with violent rhetoric or wink at threats, and calling out intimidation against election officials, judges, protesters, or public servants as a direct attack on the “more perfect Union” we have been trying to build. If we fail to do that, the unintended consequence won’t just be uglier campaigns. It will be a weaker, more fearful nation, less able to face external dangers from climate risk to nuclear crises to hostile regimes.
Where we diverge is on the rules and the remedies.
I believe the guardrails of democracy—honest elections, peaceful transfers of power, independent courts, basic ethics—are non‑negotiable. That is why I argue that we must reject leaders who lie about elections, wink at political violence, or treat public office as a personal weapon. Others are willing to bend or break those guardrails in the name of fighting their enemies. For me, that is where agreement ends and danger begins.
We also diverge on who we blame. When I see rising violence and democratic backsliding, I focus on election denial, conspiracy theories, and leaders who inflame grievances. Many focus instead on “the Left,” immigration, or cultural change as the root cause of our troubles. We share real worries about the country’s direction, but we point at different villains and often excuse harm done by “our own side.”
Finally, we diverge on tone. My writing tries to lower the temperature—to say, “We disagree, but we can still talk and fix things.” Too much of our politics, especially at the extremes, tries to raise it—to mock, to escalate, to treat every compromise as betrayal. That is how unintended consequences pile up: trust erodes, institutions fray, and we become less able to deal with climate risks, nuclear dangers, or aggressive regimes abroad.
So why talk about areas of agreement at all?
Because remembering what we share is part of how we avoid decline. Research from places like the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation and other national surveys shows that ordinary Americans agree on more practical policies than our politics admit—on lowering drug prices, making housing more affordable, strengthening Social Security, improving childcare, and tightening ethics rules. Our problem is not a lack of common ground. It is a lack of leaders and citizens willing to stand on that ground and move forward together.
If we can accept that ordinary Americans agree on more than our politics suggest—and insist that our leaders build on that agreement—we have a better chance of keeping faith with the “more perfect Union” we have been striving toward for 250 years. If we don’t, we risk handing our children a country that is more divided, more fragile, and less able to meet the challenges of a dangerous century.
We have done hard things together before. We can do them again—but only if we see each other as fellow citizens, refuse violence as a political tool, and treat our points of agreement not as a weakness, but as the starting line for serious work.
***
Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel, a federal civil servant, and a retired consultant who writes on civic education. He lives in Fredericksburg.
Another thoughtful column, Phil. Thank you.
Yes, where we agree. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has given an enormous amount of power to one official who has stated he does not care about anyone. We have a Republic if we can keep it.