“Don’t discuss politics. Don’t discuss religion.” Those are the ancient prohibition to avoid murder and mayhem breaking out from casual conversations. Good advice? Or limits that lock us away in our own little echo-chambers, mouthing the same complaints and sound-bytes against “them” time after time after time? We have had competing views since we’ve had views, and if you think discourse was more civil and refined in early times, take a look at the things the opposition said about John (and Abigail) Adams when he was running for president.
Do we learn anything from speaking exclusively with people who share our point of view? Or do we simply become more entrenched in a series of common beliefs where we continuously reinforce our well-established positions, gaining conviction from sheer repetition? Books have been written to explain how we got here from extreme media to demagogues on both side of the spectrum, and I have neither the space nor patience to review all that now. I’m also not suicidal enough to try to point out the various errors on both sides of this debate, because all such peace-keepers are inevitably mowed down in the cross-fire where their elimination is the one common objective of both sides. No. Rather I intend to explore – briefly – what we can and should do about the situation in which we find ourselves.
I have two old friends from the opposite side of the political spectrum, and during our dinners together, I have deliberately violated the prohibition against talking politics in order to engage them about their views in current events. It’s gotten hot on occasion, a few cheap shots have been thrown on both sides (old friends can’t resist the openings), and more than one discussion point has ended with the comment “Well, I’d want to see the proof of that”, a polite version of saying your pants are on fire.
So, why do I subject us all to such turmoil? Because you don’t figure things out by arguing with people who agree with you. You learn by arguing with opposing people you respect and by keeping, as much as possible, open ears and an open mind. More, I think our society is in real jeopardy if old friends can’t have a civil political discussion (even if it becomes heated).
And we learn things. There are reasons why we hold the views we do, and putting them to the test is the one and only way to determine which are real and which are just so much verbiage. When a thesis encounters an anti-thesis, the result is not annihilation like matter and anti-matter. Rather it is a synthesis where the false or shaky premises are knocked away and what is left is a new and stronger idea. That is what honest debate is supposed to achieve.
But, can we do that? Can we have a discussion where we actually listen rather than just pausing while the other side mumbles away about something? The answer is a definitive yes. There are deeply committed political figures who have always had great respect for each other and forged working relationships; heck, Mary Matalin and James Carville are on opposite sides, and they have been married for more than 30 years.
So, what are the keys to success? Well, the very first is to eliminate the idea of a competition. This isn’t you-vs-me with score cards to keep a running tally. You need to defuse the personal elements and avoid any invective at all costs (Don’t you be talking about my mama, now). This requires you to have respect for yourself (a lack of self-confidence is a powerful driver to try to “win”) as well as respect for your opposite number. You are trying to reach a better understanding of the situation and each other’s views, not determine who is the better debater.
You need to actively listen to what is being said and to ask questions to clarify. The questions can be pointed – after all, you’re trying to get through a lot of confusion to get at the truth – but they have to be respectful. It is OK to ask for sources or confirmation, because misinformation and incomplete information are often a major cause of conflicting views. But try not to resort to “show me” in every other sentence; this is a discussion, not a college sociology course.
Not long ago, I watched a stand-up comedian (sorry, I’ve forgotten the name) who was doing a fairly average political schtick about debates, enough to evoke a few smiles but not much else. But he did come up with one great suggestion when talking about trying to bridge the great divide to reach people on the other side of the political spectrum. He said: “Try to identify one of your beliefs that you can let go.” We all have a range of closely held ideas and ideals that we rise up to defend at almost every opportunity. Identify just one of those premises and let it go. Maybe it’s “all politicians are corrupt”. Maybe “all Democrats just want to give away money” or “all Republicans want to spend money on the military”. Doesn’t really matter which one you give up. What matters is the review of these closely-clutched ideas that you refuse to let others pry out of your hands. And maybe letting go of a few of those ideas that you…well…always did wonder a little about.
Maybe that’s the real solution to getting across these barriers and reaching each other. Maybe it starts with debating with ourselves and with a little personal questioning.
Leave a Reply