One of the major reasons behind the fact of our bitterly divided nation is the ”Love it or leave it” campaign. The campaign’s intention to silence dissenting views can be explained by runaway emotion, but that doesn’t excuse it. A more objective look at the campaign exposes its outcome, which runs contradictory to its implied justification of “loving” the country.

Criticism is a necessary aspect of growth. Without it, deficiencies in our planning would be ignored and problems would inevitably arise. Once things go wrong, a continued lack of criticism would ensure that problems would not be fixed. That is not a healthy, productive approach to life.

Two minds really are better than one. When two or more minds converge on a single issue, the multiple viewpoints synthesize into a better, more cohesive and deeper understanding of the issue. People who receive doctorates often read 100 or more books relating to their study, inexorably including a wide variety of viewpoints.

The result is an understanding that goes far beyond slogans and catchphrases like “Love it or leave it.” Experts don’t come to deeply understand a subject through some innate property — their knowledge comes from many great people who came before them and a willingness to admit fallibility.

By contrast, the ”Love it or leave it” campaign is highly dogmatic in nature, inherently inflexible, and prone to produce the kind of problems that arise when people are unwilling to speak out against insufficient policies.

It is ironic, considering the source. The ”Love it or leave it” campaign is perpetuated almost wholly by a small group of conservatives, and that is simply a fact. It’s ironic because one of their champion philosophers, John Stuart Mill, is famous for speaking out against such activities — noting that silencing dissenting views harms humankind more than it does the dissenter.

“If the opinion is right,” Mill wrote, “they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error.”

And what a fantastic view!

Criticism, in fact, exemplifies love. Dissenters see what they believe is a problem, and choose to speak up about it knowing fully well that they may face attack and angry commands to leave their loved ones behind for France. But they do it anyway, putting the country’s well-being above their own — hoping that others will be mature enough to handle it.

With all of this in mind, ”Love it or leave it” proves self-contradictory on multiple accounts. First, it seeks to silence dissent, thereby creating conditions for unsolvable problems and thus, societal declination. Second, it seeks to stop “clearer perception” — at least assuming that the ”Love it or leave it” crowd is convinced of its own position. Third, how much can someone really, truly love his or her country if that person wants half its people to leave?

Countries are no more than a collection of people. The United States is not a flag, a currency or an eagle. Our country is composed of nearly 300 million people who define our country’s character through their daily actions.

To say that one loves the country but can’t even live with half of its people is just plain foolish.

This problem of childish division affects all of us, and as such, we must work together to rid ourselves of it. The true “fence” does not divide liberals and conservatives; it divides people from solutions.

Are you willing to help take down that fence?