≈≈ Is a Square Round? ≈≈
∞ A Modest Proposal for Civil Political Discourse ∞

When is a Square a Circle?

Friends of mine like to point out, frequently and with actual mementos, that I have a hard time admitting I’m wrong. Their evidence surrounds me: a sign that says, “I am not arguing, I am just explaining why I’m right,” another proclaiming, “As long as everything is exactly the way I want it, I’m totally flexible,” and a button that reads, “I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.”

All gifts of love, obviously. I know this because they still answer when I call.

And truth be told, I get it. It would be very hard for me to argue with them about that. I would, but it would be hard… 😊

Which brings me to my favorite kind of discussion: supporting statements like “a square is round.” It’s absurd, challenging, and oddly satisfying. It invites openness, curiosity, and discussion, not instant conclusions. And in that way, it’s not far from modern political debate, assuming one is still possible. Both require flexible thinking, a dash of imagination, a fair amount of tolerance, and, if you want to stay friends, a solid sense of humor.

Golf Rangefinder - Tech up your golf game

So, is a square round? Absolutely. Take a square, attach it to a drill, turn the drill on, what shape do you see? Round. Motion changes perception. And that little trick leads us directly to a couple of the core principles of modern politics: spin and product.

Let’s be honest, politics is a very big, very profitable business. Money, power, influence. The competition for customers is fierce, and branding matters more than ever. Facts can disappear, and get packaged. Repeatedly. With slogans meant to prove you're on the right side.

About 80 years ago, Abbott and Costello did a comedy routine proving that 7 × 13 equals 28. Obviously, on its face, it makes no sense. But Costello had chalk and a blackboard. He did the math three times. So clearly, 7× 13 equals 28. What's the relevance? Much like today’s information cycle: if something is printed, posted, repeated, and aligns with what we already want to believe, then math, logic, and even reality can wait their turn.

Before politics became a full-contact sport, disagreement didn’t automatically mean moral failure. We argued, compromised, lost elections, won some back, and still trusted that the system mostly worked. Now a political discussion feels like being in a boxing match where your corner man keeps yelling, “He hasn’t laid a glove on you!” while you’re asking him to watch the referee because someone is very clearly kicking the crap out of you.

Very Cool Women's Watches

Why even bother having a political discussion at all? Certainly not having one is easier, but nothing ever changes that way. And more importantly, it closes us off from one another.

The irony is that differing opinions aren’t the problem. They’re necessary. You can’t have an effective government without multiple sides debating, negotiating, and occasionally saying, “Okay, that part didn’t work, let's try this.” What we have now isn’t disagreement, it’s trench warfare.

Social media feeds on it. It needs it. Algorithms build echo chambers so comfortable they come with throw pillows. They give us more of what we already believe, except louder, angrier, and increasingly certain that the other side isn’t just wrong, but dangerous. News outlets do the same thing on a 24/7 loop because outrage has a fantastic return on investment. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s a business model.

Psychologists call this othering—the belief that people who disagree with us are immoral or the enemy. Pew Research found that in 2022, 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats viewed the opposing party as more immoral than other Americans. And that was four years ago. So ask yourself: do we really hate each other that much? Or is that just what we’re being told to feel?

Most polarization, researchers suggest, comes from misperceptions. We assume our neighbors who vote differently hold the same views as the loudest, most extreme voices on our tv’s and apps. They usually don’t. But extreme voices get airtime. Calm nuance does not.

Solar powered Home Generator

Now back to geometry. Draw a square on a sphere—say, a beach ball. Is it still a square? Not really. It curves. It bends. It looks almost round. Political positions should do the same thing. Sharp corners get smoothed, definitions blur, and what started as a clear stance becomes a discussion about what actually works for everyone.

The idea that “a square is round” isn’t about denying reality. It’s about recognizing how easily reality can get reframed, marketed, and weaponized. Facts are facts. They can be applied differently, but they can’t be different.

Where does square end and circle begin? That line is supposed to be decided by us, without anger and closed minds. We don’t need less disagreement. We need less reality-show performance. Less outrage. More curiosity. More willingness to say, “I might be wrong,” without feeling like we’ve surrendered the republic.

Because if we used to disagree amicably, we could probably do it again. So let’s all calm down, put down the chalk, and step away from the blackboard.

Please share your thoughts!

If you click on a product link in any of our Blogs and make a purchase you’ll be buying directly from that store and we will receive a commission on any products purchased. The purchase price isn't affected and the store will be responsible for all things involved in that order.