Keep your eyes and ears open as you stroll through the forests and farmlands of the Upper Delaware, and you soon become aware of the many different forms of life that combine to make this region so attractive. An ecosystem’s health is measured, in part, by assessing its biodiversity, or how many different species the ecosystem supports and how they interact. The more biodiverse an ecosystem is, the more likely that it will be able to handle a variety of environmental stresses. Ecosystems dominated by a small number of species, on the other hand, lack the flexibility and resilience needed to survive and flourish and can be severely impacted by a single adverse event.

I believe that political systems work much the same way. The more points of view expressed within the political process, and the more productively they interact, the better. I’ve coined a term for this, “ideodiversity.”

Why is ideodiversity important? Simply put, ideology colors our perceptions. Our points of view influence what we pay attention to, how we interpret what we see, and the range of responses that we are willing to consider. Under ideology’s influence, we are unaware of how much of the picture we may be blocking out, or that we are actually blocking out anything at all. One would expect that political cultures that are insufficiently “ideodiverse” will get blindsided by things that they are unwilling or unable to perceive. This is one reason why one-party states tend to be so dysfunctional. Consider, for example, what happened to the neoconservatives in their “planning” for postwar Iraq. Their belief that the Iraqi people would greet us as welcome liberators made it impossible for them to anticipate any alternatives. Having systematically ignored or suppressed any opposing viewpoints, they left themselves—and us—wide open to the catastrophic disorder that resulted.

But in a properly functioning political “ecosystem,” different points of view interact in a complex system of checks and balances. Varieties of eyes watch for threats from different directions. Ideas feed off of each other, and the fertile ground gives rise to new, unpredictable, and creative solutions for the problems we face.

Clearly, we do not mean that people should not hold strong views. What is needed is not wishy-washiness, but simply respect for other opinions and the skills needed to show that respect. One can hold a robust moral/ethical/spiritual position, and express it strongly and unambiguously, without needing to belittle or ignore those who disagree. It is by no means easy, as ecumenical movements have found throughout the years, but my experience has shown me that it is possible.

And what are the enemies of ideodiversity? There are many. One is the desire for hegemony, for absolute domination of the discussion—not just overcoming opposition, but in fact eliminating it completely. This tendency is present across the political spectrum, and always has been, but is especially dangerous when all branches of government are controlled by one party as they are now. The way to counteract this hegemonism, however, is not by trying to impose a different hegemony instead, as some traditional leftists espouse, but rather by finding a way to transcend hegemony itself and develop a truly ideodiverse society.

One way to move towards such a society is by encouraging folks to say what they think and feel about the issues they care about—and so I encourage you to do just that by writing to me at smendler@care2.com, and by using the forum feature at The River Reporter’s website. And remember that while we may be “one out of many” – E Pluribus Unum – we are also Plures in Uno – “Many Within One.”