Today, American society is rife with various political contradictions. Regarding numerous policies such as healthcare reform and immigration reform, various factions are currently in heated disputes. There is a profound conflict between conservative forces and the current administration. The Tea Party (Editor's note: refers to a grassroots political movement in the United States without a formal organization, leader, or specific platform. At one time, the U.S. economy was sluggish, unemployment remained high, and ordinary citizens faced the pressure of high taxes, which was very similar to the situation of the Boston Tea Party over 200 years ago; therefore, the public continued the struggle of their predecessors and named themselves the Tea Party) has held rallies across the country, declaring their intent to "take back" the government.
Conflicts between federal and local governments are also common. Recently, Arizona introduced an anti-immigration law authorizing police to check "suspected illegal immigrants" at any time, which federal officials like Obama have publicly opposed. I recently saw a cartoon in a newspaper: an employee tells a federal official that they should sue Arizona over its anti-immigration law, to which the federal official replies: "What if they sue our federal government over the healthcare reform issue?" Every now and then, we also hear Texas politicians clamoring: "Don't mess with Texas." If provoked, they might threaten secession again (Texas was once an independent nation).
Picking up the newspaper, it seems the world is in chaos, but putting it down and looking outside, everything is quiet, and the lives of ordinary people are not significantly affected. However, thanks to media reports, relatives and friends back home sometimes worry. When I call home, I often hear questions like: "The U.S. seems very chaotic, are you okay?" I tell them that these political quarrels do not have much impact on us. Many families legally own firearms and have vastly different political views, but in daily life, they go about their business and are not shooting at each other.
It is not difficult to understand why political contradictions have not intensified social conflicts. So why do social contradictions not threaten social stability? Observing from a close distance, I find that we can actually borrow the vocabulary used in China to resolve petition issues: some are resolved by faith, some by the system, and some by channeling public opinion. Furthermore, as a society ruled by law, many conflicts can be resolved before the law rather than being exacerbated.
Religious faith brings people of different backgrounds and political views together, making everyone realize that the problems they face are, in a larger context, minor issues. Moreover, it provides a venue for reasoning at least once a week, ranging from the ultimate purpose of human existence to how to resolve conflicts between spouses and neighbors, which can defuse many social problems. Within a community group, it also makes everyone realize that they all have problems, subtly fostering social understanding. In short, regarding moral instruction, the U.S. practices the separation of church and state, with the government retreating as the people advance; the state basically does not monopolize the affairs of moral education, but lets society solve this problem, which actually makes things simpler.
As for how the political system resolves conflicts among the people, I believe everyone has already seen a lot, and experts have provided detailed discussions, so I will not show off here. My general feeling is that people put contradictions and differences out in the open, ultimately moving toward rationality through debate, and then deciding through voting. If these contradictions were hidden and kept from public knowledge, it would be hard to guarantee that hidden dangers would not occasionally erupt.
Why does opening up channels for public opinion not threaten but rather promote social stability? Let me give an example: due to the passage of the healthcare reform plan, conservative forces felt deeply frustrated. The newspaper here has almost become a "reactionary" paper dedicated to opposing Obama. Within the conservative camp, some even suggested launching armed forces if the federal government forcibly pushed the plan forward, threatening to fight back. This statement was published publicly, and even within the conservative forces, it was criticized. Those who were initially sympathetic, after seeing the debates on these remarks in the newspaper, felt that their position was untenable, and naturally, it did not gain any momentum.
When speech is open, when people can speak freely, many opinions can neutralize each other. Writer David Sim once wrote in a novel: "In a society where different opinions are suppressed, those opinions become powerful... If dissent is tolerated, those dissents quickly become obsolete and are seen as crude and simple." Because of this subtlety, even without the constraints of the Constitution, the U.S. government might not necessarily regulate speech even if it could.
What the U.S. government does regulate are those substantive social contradictions and threats to society. For example, if someone is truly sharpening their knives to confront the government, or planning terrorist activities that threaten social security, the federal or local government can legally arrest them. But if it is merely speech, the government is helpless. Even Clinton and Obama could only warn in their speeches against over-hyping confrontation with the government, rather than directly stopping the speech from occurring.
Therefore, there will be a multitude of different voices in the newspapers. I don't know if Obama reads the newspapers, but if he saw the papers here, he would find that two pages of the commentary section are filled with satire, ridicule, and attacks against him. He himself has stated that no one likes to hear criticism, but such criticism and supervision are essential. This is thanks to the pioneers of this system, those with foresight who were willing to subject themselves to criticism, thereby initiating the current virtuous cycle of public opinion supervision.
However, making such a transition is not difficult; one only needs to lift their head, look at the future, and then look at the present with the eyes of the future. Not long ago, I watched a feature film, "Before the Rains," which tells the story of a British master and an Indian servant working together to build a road before India's independence. Later, conflicts involving love, nationality, and personal issues arose. The Indian servant had the opportunity to kill the Englishman who almost caused his death, but he put down his gun and gave the other person a way out: "You and I will both pass away, but this road will remain."
Similarly, the older generation and our generation will both pass away, but the road left behind will remain. The question is, will it be a road full of hardships and obstacles, or a road that becomes wider as we walk it?