It’s the perpetual debate: Is the glass half-empty or half-full?

Within my own overly active and disquieted mind, that dialogue is robust and never-ending. Over the long expanse of years, I have tended to be an optimist. I wake up most mornings in anticipation of a good day. My inherent inclination is to think that most problems will work themselves out.

Yet, over more recent years, the internal pessimist has grown more prevalent. That voice increasingly gives the optimist a run for its money. Whether you regard that downbeat instinct as poisonous or just appropriately cautious and wary, it has become ever louder inside.

So, herewith is an invitation to join me for a brief tour of that inward chatter and ongoing argument. Enter at your own risk.

The inner pessimist observes, “Our political divide grows ever deeper and calcified. For many, polarization is no longer an apt description. It more resembles outright hatred. Our country’s connective tissue cannot withstand endless years of this.”

To which the internal optimistic replies, “The divide is intense, but certainly not without precedent. Southern states seceded from the union. We fought a ghastly Civil War. The union prevailed and the nation pulled back together. Fractures can be healed.”

The pessimist asserts, “But there are so many more tools of division today. So many more media reinforcements. So many who find meaning or profit in factionalism and discord.”

The optimist rebuts, “Perhaps it is human nature to live in the tyranny of the now. We are conditioned to think this moment is unparalleled. That every event is either salvation or apocalyptic. It is not for nothing that pro football hypes a ‘game of the decade’ at least every other year. Perhaps we all just need to take a breath.”

The pessimistic chimes in, “Okay, but it was just two years ago that we witnessed an organized effort to overturn the results of an election. The whole idea of the peaceful transfer of power is no longer taken for granted.”

The optimist makes rather easy work of this: “True that. But no matter how stressed, our institutions held. The courts did not buckle. Neither did the press. Many of those who attacked the Capitol are now sitting in jail cells. Those who spurred them on may eventually join them.”

The pessimist notes, “Autocrats seem to be having their day in many parts of the world. A number of them have nukes in abundance. Or are eagerly in pursuit of them. That is hardly reassuring.”

The optimist acknowledges, “You’ve got me there. But it is not implausible to have confidence that even bad actors have a powerful instinct for self-preservation.”

The pessimist plays the hole card: “I guess all that only matters if we don’t make the world uninhabitable through climate change.”

The optimist counters, “That is a threat, no doubt. Though I’ll still put my stock in technological ingenuity and human adaptability. When under the gun, mankind has long shown a knack for figuring it out. Not that many decades ago, we thought human population growth was a time bomb. Over the last 50 years, the world’s fertility rate has halved. Now some countries are literally in a population death spiral and out of control population growth really remains a condition only in sub-Saharan Africa.”

Tired, the two voices take a break to refuel, while agreeing that Major League Baseball’s efforts to speed up the game have been on the mark, though the designated hitter rule remains an unneeded, unwanted innovation. Thank God for minor concurrences.

Then they are back at it.

The pessimist points to the accelerating wealth disparity and the nihilism born of many factors, but fed by the lack of confidence of younger generations that they will have it better than those of older vintage. The optimist concedes a good deal of this and further worries that artificial intelligence is likely to add to the gap between haves and have-nots. So, further agreement here, if not of the happy sort.

Both the downcast and the upbeat voices worry about the destabilizing effect of the wealth divide. As to artificial intelligence, the pessimist notes the worldwide upheavals generated by young, idle hands, especially of the male sort, while the optimistic gives a nod to societies where a lack of preoccupation with economic subsistence has enabled people to pursue cultural richness.

The dialogue heats back up.

The pessimistic offers, “How can you be at all sanguine about a country with 400 million guns in circulation and children regularly subjected to lockdown drills?”

The optimist retorts, “Point taken. There is a sickness afoot. Even if the odds remain that a student is far more likely to be injured or killed in a traffic accident than by an active shooter.”

The pessimist contends, “Our immigration system has been a mess for what seems like ever. We have people crossing the border who shouldn’t be here and people kept out who have much to contribute.”

The optimistic refutes, “Surely, there is a way through the impasse. But I know two things. First, America has most often been too stingy as opposed to too generous with border passes. Second, a sizable chunk of the world would come here if given half a chance. That has to be an antidote to all of the self-doubt.”

It’s the pessimist’s turn: “Nearly 250 years in as a country, we are still plagued by prejudice and intolerance of various sorts. Opportunity and advancement remain very unequal.”

Back to the optimist: “Cheer up, mate. Of course, there is a distance left to travel. But the U.S. today is hardly the country of Dred Scott or Jim Crow or the Little Rock 9. Every now and then, you can take some small satisfaction in how far we have come.”

On and on it goes. But this guided journey has come to its end. You are excused and I wish you, dear visitor, an interlude of mental peace and tranquility.

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator. He writes regularly for Colorado Politics and the Gazette newspapers. Reach him at?EWS@EricSondermann.com; follow him at @EricSondermann