In a democracy, party factionalization should be expected. In fact, James Madison acknowledged this in the 10th essay of the Federalist Papers when he said, “A zeal for different opinions [has], in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”

However, just because the founding fathers acknowledged the tendency of humans to faction does not mean they condoned it. Patrick Henry warned the American people of the dangers of factions when he said, “United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.”

While party factionalization is inevitable in a democratic form of government, ideological polarization is something that we should be wary of just as the founding fathers were. The American public has not heeded their warnings.

Party factionalization is beneficial to a democracy because it promotes a diversity of thought and discussion. Differing ideas can be heard, so one group of people does not hold all the power. In short, party factionalization helps prevent tyranny.

However, it is when political factions polarize based on differing ideologies that the efficiency of a democratic system is damaged. Ideological polarization is born out of differences in key ideological beliefs that catalyze a stark rift between the opposing sides. In the political realm, ideological polarization is one of the main reasons that parties have drastically decreased their cooperation since the 1980s.

Ideological polarization creates a lack of compassion between people of opposing parties. It is not uncommon for one to refuse socialize with a person of opposing beliefs. Quite frankly, this notion is unfounded and idiotic. By refusing to socialize with people of opposing beliefs, we actively deepen animosity. A refusal to communicate perpetuates harsh misunderstandings and deepens the ideological divide.

The lack of compassion between parties increases snap judgements about people of opposing views. A Republican might assume that Democrats are lazy and want everything done for them. A Democrat might assume Republicans do not want to help people in unfavorable economic situations. In reality the Democrat might believe the government should take responsibility for individuals in need but still enjoy the benefits of private corporations. The Republican might truly care about those in need but believe that private corporations are the most effective way to give aid.

The point is, we do not know and should not assume why a person is in his chosen political party. The fact that he is in a party that one does not agree with in its entirity does not mean the individual is despicable. It is vital, especially in this age of heightened tension and gridlock between parties, to understand that differences in views do not have to result in staunch divisions.

Another dangerous aspect of ideological polarization is ignorant party allegiance. While it is not detrimental for a person to align with a political party, it is when the party’s beliefs supersede his own that party allegiance becomes blind. For instance, one might belong to party X or Y only because his family is in the same party or because he is not educated on the party’s policies. These ignorant bases for political decisions are dangerous when a person mindlessly casts votes for certain candidates, who may not actually share the same beliefs as him but are rather led by party affiliation.

Blind party allegiance is also evident when a person changes his beliefs, which are ideally firmly founded, when party national conventions do. If a person aligns with a party’s complete agenda, ignoring nuanced views he personally holds, does he really have beliefs at all? Other than the belief in a party’s superiority, it can be assumed that he does not. And, to quote the musical “Hamilton,” “If you stand for nothing… what will you fall for?”

Ideological polarization can lead politicians and the public to refuse to work together. In Congress, the lack of compassion and understanding between parties is one of numerous reasons that cross-party voting has decreased as ideological polarization has increased.

In the public, the lack of compassion and understanding between parties can mean ending friendships, cutting family ties and creating enemies due to allegiances to factions that are polarizing more and more as time goes on.

Ideological polarization affects people of all ages and can control the relationships we have with each other in both the political and private realms. It is important that we aid in the decreasing polarization. Choose to find middle-ground with people who have different views than you. Choose to not pledge allegiance to belligerent political parties. Choose to support bipartisan legislation because it promotes compromise. By actively choosing to do these things, we can begin to decrease the ideological polarization that has accelerated political extremism in the U.S.

Photo courtesy of bbnpov.com.

Flynn’s actions allegedly violated the Logan Act, a law that makes it a felony for private citizens to to negotiate with foreign governments. Whether or not Flynn violated the Logan Act is the subject of an ongoing investigation by U.S. officials. The FBI, which regularly monitors communications between Russia and the U.S., did not find any wrongdoing when it intercepted the communication last year. However, as of Feb. 9, the FBI is continuing to investigate the series of communications Flynn made. Among the subjects discussed were President Obama’s harsh response to Russia’s influence in the 2016 Election. Flynn later gave Vice President Mike Pence, among others, “incomplete information”—translation: he lied—regarding what he discussed.

The revelations should come as no surprise. Flynn has long had close ties with Vladimir Putin and his oligarchy. He regularly appeared on “Russia Today,” one of Putin’s many propaganda outlets, as an analyst. During one of his appearances, he stated “Russia has its own national security strategy, and we have to respect that.” The existence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization begs to differ. Flynn also famously appeared at a 2015 Russia Today Gala with Putin and Jill Stein, another hypocritical, self-proclaimed “people’s hero” who cozies up with autocrats. He’s even given paid speeches at these galas. It should come as no surprise, then, that many Russian lawmakers were upset with Flynn’s resignation Feb. 13 and swiftly came to his defense even after he left office.

Guilty or not, Flynn’s removal from office is a victory for Americans and global security. During Trump’s campaign, he regularly led “lock her up” chants, a reference to Secretary Hillary Clinton’s alleged crimes committed while mishandling emails, having a foundation for global health or whatever people think happened during the Benghazi attack. Flynn said that Clinton “does not know the difference between a lie and the truth.” Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, so it might be time for “lock him up” chants.

Flynn also supported the hateful speech by members of the alt-right on Twitter, along with the furthering of conspiracy theories. Keep in mind, Michael Flynn was once the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency as a U.S. Army Lieutenant General. To list off all of Flynn’s offensive or downright false tweets would take too long (though CNN put together a nice anthology), but many of them include equating Islam with terrorism. One particular tweet includes a link to a video in which Flynn calls the ridiculous assertion that the terror group ISIS is practicing Islam the “most powerful message I’ve heard in a long time.” Flynn also famously tweeted “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL” with a link to a video falsely claiming that Muslims want 80 percent of the world exterminated or enslaved. Off Twitter, Flynn has also called Islam “a cancer.” It’s disappointing, especially coming from someone who was once part of the U.S.’s titan intelligence community in which patriotic American Muslims regularly put away a lot of terrorists. Perhaps it shouldn’t too disappointing, since Flynn was fired from that post.

Flynn also furthered fake news from champions of Nazism and other taboo societal views. One such champion was Mike Cernovich, who once tweeted “Have you guys ever tried ‘raping’ a girl without using force? Try it. It’s basically impossible. Date rape does not exist.” Cernovich later deleted the tweet like the coward he is. Flynn also retweeted posts by Milo Yiannopoulos, another alt-right closet Nazi who got himself banned from Twitter and enjoys a disturbingly large numbers of shares on Facebook. In Flynn’s defense, his posts were often made to disparage Muslims or attack Clinton and not explicitly espouse other alt-right ideas like anti semitism or white nationalism, but our political apparatus should include figures who reject falsehoods, conspiracy theories, hate speech and the comments of ideologies like Nazism, anarchy and fascism that have no place in our society.

And that’s why Flynn’s resignation is a victory. Trump’s inner circle of crazy ladies, shady businessmen and vaguely evil propagandists has taken a hit with the fall of Michael T. Flynn. Trump’s easily-convinced ears now have fewer people telling him, among other things, that American Muslims aim to kill us all. But it’s only a drop in the bucket: Steve Bannon still holds a permanent seat on the National Security Council while General Joseph Dunford, a modern McCarthy and the highest ranking member of the military, is left in the dark. But seeing how we’re only a few weeks in, the quick collapse of Trump’s circle of cronies is off to a good start. The sooner it’s gone, the sooner the United States can get back on-track.

Sanders argued that access to health care should be guaranteed as a right. He regretted that the U.S. is the only developed country that does not assure near-universal health care coverage. This assertion has been verified by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Cruz argued that an individual’s right to health care should mean the right for the individual to choose the health care to which he or she has access; the ACA diminishes the individual’s freedom to choose. He cited that 6 million Americans had their plans canceled contrary to their wishes and that many lost their ability to see their primary care physicians with the new ACA stipulations, and that the average household insurance premiums rose by around $5,000—a reflection of decreased competition in the health insurance market and the fact that insurance companies raised rates to compensate for more risk in the expanded insurance market. Cruz also cited the long wait times and subsequent tragedies that occur in high-income countries with state-controlled coverage; when government rations health care, hospitals become overburdened and less effective he asserted.

“In America, we do rationing in a different way, Ted,” replied Sanders. He alluded to the tens of thousands of Americans who die because they do not see a doctor when they should, due to a lack of affordable insurance.

While Cruz argued that having access to health care means maintaining the right to choose that health care, Sanders asked, “You want to buy one of Donald Trump’s mansions?” He asserted that per Cruz’s definition, “You have access to do that as well,” said Sanders. “Access doesn’t mean a damn thing”—especially for working class Americans.

As for a U.S. without the ACA, Cruz assured a woman from the audience who was battling breast cancer that her policy would not be canceled because of her preexisting condition. Yet, Cruz did not answer if or how an ACA replacement would mandate that insurance companies ignore preexisting conditions for future policies.

Both Sanders and Cruz mentioned that doctors seem to spend more time filling out forms than they do practicing medicine. Cruz argued this is due to ACA forms; Sanders claimed that this drain on doctors’ time comes from insurance companies, further supporting his end goal of booting insurance companies out of health care and joining the rest of the developed world with a single-payer health care system.

Cruz implored Sanders to join him in a fight to curtail the power of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA).

“Right now, it takes 2 billion dollars to approve a new drug,” Cruz said. “I’ve written legislation to reform the process so we can be curing diseases and curing people.”

Expenses driven by the FDA dissuade drug developers from bringing life-saving drugs to the market and FDA regulations bar international drugs from entering the U.S. market, he asserted. Though disagreeing on the normative power of the FDA, both senators agreed that less-expensive drugs should be imported from abroad.

Cruz did not adequately answer how his alternative to the ACA would expand access to health care for individuals with preexisting conditions while increasing competition and empowering patients; Sanders failed to answer how businesses are expected to shoulder mandated insurance without raising prices or cutting wages. However, this health care conversation is far from over, and these two senators specifically, who are both prospective 2020 presidential candidates, are not through debating.

“The reason I have a little doubt—just a little—is because he grew up and nobody knew him,” said Trump.

A later, very awkward interview on “The View” confirmed his views: Trump, among many others, questioned the validity of a Barack Obama presidency, despite the fact that Obama had already confirmed his citizenship by releasing his short form birth certificate, a standard that we don’t hold to other presidential candidates. Despite refusing to operate on any facts or logical reasoning, Trump continued to lambast the president. It was clear that Trump wasn’t just trying to be some kind of rouge devil’s advocate. Trump had something against Obama.

All cards on the table: I’ve loved the Barack Obama presidency. His cautious yet realistic foreign policy—one that keeps America active across the globe but strikes only when absolutely necessary—reminds me in some ways of Eisenhower. His celebration of American diversity and staunch patriotism, even when criticizing the country he leads, represent the same national values that I hold. And then there’s the man himself: charismatic, bold, intelligent, kind and highly-skilled at comedy. I’ve been proud to call him “my president” and I’ll miss doing so. I was hoping that, at the very least, the era of Obama politics would be extended by his endorsed successor, Secretary Hillary Clinton.

It wasn’t. In an election that blindsided me and so many others, Donald Trump beat an experienced and qualified politician that seemed to have the race all-but-won. My respect for him gone, the year-and-a-half leading up to Nov. 8 showed me that Trump represented everything Obama was not and everything I was against. He’s a bully who convinces others that nothing is true and everything is possible. He rarely, if ever, talks specifics. As I’ve written previously, he has no respect for or understanding of the US military, our country’s most powerful and sacred institution. He’s been accused of sexual assault and indicted for fraud and brags about it.

He’s disgusting and doesn’t deserve the Oval Office. For so many who share my view, they decided to express it through massive, nation-wide protests. Old slogans like “Love Trumps Hate” were shouted, but a new chant, forged by the outcome of the election, was made: “not my president.” That hashtag has also trended. While I share the protesters’ anger and lack of respect for Trump, I do not agree with their hallmark position. Though I say it through gritted teeth, Trump will be my president and, I hope, that he’ll be a good one.

Let’s go back to the Obama presidency. Since the beginning, there were people like Trump that questioned the legitimacy of his presidency. There were people calling him the Antichrist. There were constant threats, real and ridiculous, of impeachment, none of them with legal ground to stand on. There was outrage from Republicans and independents after each election and virtually no cooperation from opponents who worked tirelessly to thwart Obama at every turn. So many refused to call Barack Obama “my president,” and I wasn’t happy about it. Our long string of peaceful transitions of power, decided by the people show that, regardless of the outcome, our next president will be as legitimate as the previous. It would make no sense to root against someone tasked with leading you through a dangerous, unforgiving world.

And that’s why President Obama has shown nothing but respect since Nov. 8. It’s the way our country works, like it or not. We’re all in this together, even if some of us have different or even dangerous ideas about what it means. I’m not excited for a Trump presidency. I’m very, very concerned. If he follows through with his campaign promises, it’ll be a disaster. But I’m hoping, like the election, that my predictions will prove to be off. I’ll likely fight him every step of the way, but as I previously stated, I’ll call Donald Trump “my president,” just as I’ve done for all the others in my lifetime. For the country’s sake, you should, too.