Recently, on his new show “Moyers & Company,” long-time commentator Bill Moyers discussed with his guest, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, the political gulf between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. Haidt argued that “compromise” has become a dirty word in the American political system. Politics in this country is more about demonizing an opposing group, good versus evil, rather than solving the financial and economic problems this country faces.

Haidt further argued that both liberals and conservatives were to blame, though Republicans seem to have cast the first stone. For example, back in 2010, Speaker John Boenher, R-Ohio, refused to use the word “compromise” during an interview on “60 Minutes” because it would compromise his principles.

Moyers stated why this polarization is a problem: “You cannot, in a pluralistic, multicultural society with all the different beliefs, have a mantra that unites us all. You’ve got to broker compromise.”

The show gave me a lot of food for thought. Politics have always been contentious, no matter the time in history or the country you live in. In my opinion, the “middle ground” in this country has fallen out of politics for at least a decade. The show pointed out that this division goes way back to the 1960s.

Can compromise be reached this country? Or will the divisions continue to hinder solutions to our economic and fiscal crisis?

History teaches us that political extremes within a state will always exist. History also teaches us, when the middle ground drops out between these extremes, it can mean dire consequences for the state and its people. In 49 B.C., the Roman Republic fell into civil war when Caesar and Pompey would not compromise. The French Revolution started in 1789 in part because France was amid a financial crisis and King Louis XVI and the nobility would not compromise on tax reform. In Germany in 1933, the Fascists took power under Hitler during a time when the Democrats and the Communists would not compromise on solutions to Germany’s own fiscal crisis. In each of these simplified examples, each state went through a period of dictatorship and war.

One solution is to have a “Bill of Responsibilities” to complement the Bill of Rights. Sociology professor and pastor Tony Campolo supported this idea back in the April 1998 issue of Covenant Companion. He argued that our Constitution and Bill of Rights is excellent defining our rights, but it fails to articulate our responsibilities as citizens under God. Setting aside these religious reasons, I think that a Bill of Responsibilities added to the Constitution could unify liberals and conservatives.

The First Amendment, for example, is something most liberals and conservatives can rally around. Free Speech is the cornerstone to political discussion in this country. But the law states that Free Speech comes with responsibilities. The classic example, of course, is that you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater without serious consequences. Also, those who libel and slander can be held accountable for damages.

The First Amendment of Responsibilities would address these issues. The use of demonizing terms within political discussion should be considered libel slander. A great example of how politicians demonize each other comes from Newt Gingrich’s GOPAC memo “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” written in 1994. Gingrich told Republicans to use the following terms to describe an opponent’s political campaign: “destructive,” failure,” “pathetic,” “lie,” “betray,” and so on. At the very least, under the First Amendment of Responsibilities, such demonizing words cannot come from anonymous sources and especially from corporations. This would take care of the problem of super PACs having too much sway in elections while their contributors hide in anonymity.

Another point of contention between liberals and conservatives is gun control and the interpretation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Second Amendment of Responsibilities would, of course, deal with gun ownership. Some proponents say that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights supports the ownership of guns. Some opponents say that this idea is antiquated, and should be abolished. I think if you own a gun then you have the responsibility for its maintenance and care and the duty to keep it away from people who are not trained in its use, especially children.

The Bill of Responsibilities might even require that you be trained with the gun you own. I might even go as far to say that the ownership of a gun allows you to be deputized by a representative of law enforcement during times of crisis. Furthermore, if you are registered to carry a concealed weapon, you must also know First Aid.

The addition of a Bill of Responsibilities into the Constitution would require an enormous amount of discussion and far-reaching effort. A reform like this would take years. Many of you will disagree with my suggestions.

If so, then perhaps we can reach a compromise.