As a classical educator, I can’t help but feel a sense of excitement when I uncover connections between different disciplines. Recently, I found a fascinating link between political factions and mathematical fractions, giving us a unique lens through which to understand the navigation of objectives and relationships in the political arena
As we move forward through the current political cycle, attention is shifting toward key legislative battles, state-level elections, and the shaping of future policy. Whether you’re actively engaged in political discussions or simply observing from the sidelines, it’s clear that our political environment is far more nuanced than just “team red” versus “team blue.” Even in our system, dominated by two major parties, it’s not as if we’re separated into two giant circles, holding hands and singing Kumbaya.
Why not? Factions.
Factions: What Divides Us
Factions are smaller groups within a larger community that often hold robust disagreements based on differing opinions. While they often receive a negative portrayal, factions are actually a vital indicator of freedom. The diversity of thought (factions) in our society affirms our political tolerance for the freedoms of thought, speech, and association.
Though the words “faction” and “fraction” are similar, they are not directly related. “Fraction” simply refers to a smaller part of a whole. However, our factions are indeed fractions. It is human nature to form factions within our larger communities—whether in families, churches, political parties, nations, or across humanity throughout history. These factions are the smaller parts, or fractions, of a much larger whole. James Madison addresses factions in Federalist No. 10, explaining their inevitability, their necessity, and the challenges they present, as well as offering insight on how to manage their effects.
The conservative sphere, like many others, is rife with factions—and thus, fractions. In our republic, we understand that when a collective voice is divided into smaller and smaller groups, it loses its power and influence. Those concerned with political efficacy are often frustrated by these party factions, as they fracture the strength of the whole. To consolidate power, many call for unity. But unity is merely the process of combining these fractions. And it’s true: fractions must combine to have any successful operations within our constitutional republic.
Combining Fractions? Operations? That Sounds Like Arithmetic!
Combining fractions requires the operation of addition, but to do so correctly, we must follow the rules of this operation. Step one is to recognize the elements of a fraction—it has both a numerator and a denominator.
To combine fractions, we need a common denominator. How do we achieve that? First, we must understand that every denominator is the product of several factors. (I know we haven’t connected all the dots yet, but stick with me here!) When examining the denominator, we must carefully sort out its unique factors. Sometimes, to establish a common denominator, we must let go of some factors and bring in others. We must negotiate between the fractions until we can find a common denominator on which to operate.
Do We Have to Agree with Everyone About Everything Then?
In short, “no.” We only need to find a common denominator to operate or “do” something together. This means the people or groups we work with can change depending on the task at hand. For example, many groups may disagree on theology or eschatology, but if we all share a common value—like philanthropy—we don’t need to agree or “factor in” our other differences to work together for a philanthropic purpose.
Politically, we all have denominators or foundations formed by multiple factors. Some of these factors are clear, and we’ve analyzed how and why they became part of our base. However, we still need to analyze other factors to fully understand their value. It’s through this process of understanding—what we call the dialectic art—that we can be effective in our rhetoric. Clarity helps us identify commonality, the essential ingredient for successful operations.
Commonality vs. Distinctions
Commonality is not our natural tendency. Factions are notorious for obsessing over distinctions, highlighting the differences that set them apart. While clarity can emerge from these distinctions, without giving proper weight to commonality, we risk losing the ability to operate effectively.
So, why do we tend to emphasize our distinctions? Let me pose a question in return: If we focus on what we have in common—or on shared values—how can we claim the superiority of our individual factors?
The truth is, we can’t. There is no foothold for pride or ego when we’re focused on discovering that which is shared or equal. Could pride be at the root of this? Surely not, especially not within Christian conservatism…I jest.
Before We All Unify Around the Unity Train, Allow Me This Caveat
Our common denominator is only as valuable as the factors it contains. There will always be those who call for unity for unity’s sake. Ignore their baseless cries. True unity must be built on factors that are good, true, and beautiful. To do this, we must know these things, love them, and actively seek them in the world and in the people around us.
Philippians 4:8 ESV
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
To learn more about how we can unite around the true, good, and beautiful, join the Education Independence Network!
Written by:
