This is addressed to the people of Maine.

In the interest of amending the political tension of our time, you are asked to consider the following question: With what disposition should we conduct the discourse between our two major parties — the Democrats and the Republicans? This is a question of both federal and state significance, as its answer would define the success and development of our state and nation as a whole.

At present, we conduct our discourse carelessly with brash impatience and detachment. This habit has served us poorly in our times of conflict. It is a sorrow to watch our politicians today stew with contempt as they spew slander without respect for their colleagues. For us to have surrounded ourselves with this display of animosity, no sympathy could hope to offer sufficient condolences.

This is no way to be a union. We all have the wonderful opportunity of taking part in defining the meaning of our nation and to choose what we stand for. In this nation, it is an honor to serve alongside each other as citizens. We must hold our fellow citizens as dear as we hold this union, for it is those citizens who comprise it. It is in these times of conflict that we are called upon to hold ourselves above the angers and fears that rend us apart.

We need a new tone to the dialogue between Democrats and Republicans, and this new tone should be informed by our very way of government. It is a key feature of any democratic republic that it cannot be run with better judgment than its building blocks, the people, themselves have. Therefore, it is critical that this new tone is civil and invites well-reasoned judgment among the parties and the people. But it is also critical that this tone is not so calm that it is complacent, as it must still allow for debate.

Debate is a central part of our government; without it, we would slip into extremism. The dialogue between our parties should be productive and hold clarity. Each party needs to remain firm enough on its side of the debate to contribute productively while being humble enough to accept the opposing party getting its way — an inevitability. The desire for one’s policy cannot be held above reason. Thus, this tone must be one of humility, honesty and civility.

This should not be purely regarded as a national issue. Redefining our civic relationship as a nation will require that each state independently explore what civil unity means to them. To amend our national division, we must start with our personal divisions.

The bonds of neighbors, friends and family shall not be broken over politics. People of Maine, we should get started. We should not wait passively for national change to happen; we should lead the charge in holding ourselves above our differences.

The end-goal of policy is to facilitate the happiness and health of our union. To tear ourselves apart over policy defeats the entire purpose of it. We must stop this.

To amend the tension in our union, we must append a strong sense of civility to the political discourse in our state and every town and neighborhood therein. But what is the point of a union if you must tolerate policy that you fundamentally do not believe in? That is a great question, but here is one better yet: What is the point of perfect policy if we must destroy ourselves to get it?