When I think about how to heal political divisions, I often use the term “Reasonable-People-of-Goodwill”. Can Reasonable-People-of-Goodwill reach different conclusions about the best way to achieve a good purpose? If they can, then we should “reach across the aisle” to find compromises.

An example here in California is rent control.

All reasonable people of goodwill should agree with the goal of all people living in safe, sanitary shelter. But reasonable people of goodwill can—and do!—disagree about how best to achieve this goal.

Often, such disagreements among people of goodwill revolve around whether to take short-term or long-term actions.

On rent control, I am instinctively opposed to it (or to any other kind of price control). Why? Because, as the saying goes: “the answer to high prices is high prices”. The high prices will encourage people, including landlords, to build more housing.

I realize, however, that it is easy for me to favor long-term solutions because I can afford to stay in nice housing that includes a clubhouse and a community swimming pool.

The situation is totally different for a person (and often a family with children) who have fallen behind on paying their rent or mortgage. They’re going to find themselves living in a tent or an old car, unless there’s an immediate, short-term government action, such as rent control (or temporary emergency housing).

Unfortunately, the resulting decline in incentives for the private sector to build more housing will worsen the housing shortage in future years, ultimately increasing the shortage of housing that is the underlying cause of higher and higher housing costs.

Thus, short-term help often increases long-term problems.

But we must also bear in mind the insight of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes who reminded us—especially those of us (like me) who instinctively choose long-term policies instead short-term bandaids to deal with economic problems—“In the long run, we are all dead!”

This conundrum reminds me of what I call “The Fallacy of the Multiple Choice Exam”. (see my blog “Pandemic Wisdom: Multiple Choice Exams & No-Win-Scenarios”)

We are taught starting from kindergarten that there exists a correct answer that is right. But in the messiness of real life, there often is not one right answer that solves a complicated problem such as enabling people to live in safe, sanitary housing.

Hence, the need to listen to each others’ ideas and to reach compromises that embody the best ideas from everyone—whether short-term, long-term, or novel ideas that are “outside the box” (such as zoning changes that authorize safe, sanitary small houses in back yards).

While discussing which policies and actions are wisest, people of goodwill must never ignore the needs of any suffering, poverty-stricken people. That would make us as heartless as the rich man who Jesus denounced because he ignored the suffering of poverty-stricken Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).

Furthermore, while discussing which policies and actions are wisest, people of goodwill need to stay unified about our ultimate goal:

We want to be Americans who establish the ideal America that was first discovered in the hearts of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. An ideal America that:

—blesses all people (Abraham, Genesis 12:1-3);

—challenges all pharaohs to set all people free (Moses, Exodus 3:9-10); and

—heals all hurting people (Jesus, Luke 15:11-32).

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT

Have you ever disagreed with a reasonable person of goodwill? About what? Why?

Do you find ways to remain friends with a reasonable person of goodwill, even if you disagree about something? How? Why?

READ MORE

For related thoughts, please read my blogs “We Need Inspiring Visions of a Bright Future. Why?”, “Civilizations and Governments: An Independent Path”, “Hiding in Plain Sight”, and “Grace and Peace: Titus”.