My undergraduate degree is in
sociology, and there was always an open debate between sociology and psychology
regarding the relative impact of social vs. psychological influences. The
debate continues among the laity, fueled to a significant degree by responses
for and against the writings of Ayn Rand.
In today’s climate of extreme partisanism, it’s rare to
see an argument for any consideration of relativity. Everything is cast in
absolute terms; therefore, it’s really difficult to hold an intelligent—or
civil—debate about anything (there’s that absolutist thing again!)
Hillary Clinton wrote a book entitled, It Takes a
Village. Reaction against it predictably was based not nearly as much on
the merits of her thesis as on her political and personal reputation.
An old friend (since high school days) is intelligent,
educated (actually an educator) and articulate, so I take seriously his
comments. His brother also is educated and articulate—a colleague in ministry—whose
comments I also consider thoughtfully. They both are Libertarians; and since I
am a very liberal Democrat, you can imagine some of the conversations that
emerge when we make contact.
I also have a cousin—a sweet,
compassionate young woman who has survived some of life’s hardest knocks. She
is conservative; although, she may be the only true “independent” among all my
acquaintances.[1]
I mention these three because each of
them is able to carry on a conversation in which there is disagreement without
becoming sarcastic, disrespectful, or insulting. They focus on issues instead
of personalities, and in virtually every conversation with either of them I
find my own awareness expanded and my understanding more empathetic.
By contrast, most of my remaining
acquaintances, liberal or conservative, if they participate at all in politically
or socially controversial conversations, resort to insulting put-downs directed
at any who disagree with them. With increasing frequency, I find myself dropping
out of those conversations or ignoring them altogether. They accomplish absolutely nothing; indeed, they are counterproductive
to any hope of reconciliation and unity.
The vitriolic conversations I observe
appear to emerge out of a mindset that says, “I’m right; and I have to convert these
infidels!” I have friends who actually have said we are obligated to confront “their”
stupidity! (And the overuse of the word, stupidity is another obsession of
mine.)
Here’s the thing: if you refuse to accept
me for who I am and for what I believe—if you have a need to change and correct
me—if you require that I be like you—before
you can treat me with respect and common courtesy, there’s not much hope of
deepening our relationship. If I perceive that you are trying to change me—to coerce
or intimidate or humiliate me into becoming something I am not—then my sense of
distrust and defensiveness is activated.
On the other hand, if you treat me
with respect and common courtesy first—if
I perceive that you truly are listening to me and trying to understand me[2]; then I am much more likely
to trust you and listen to you and to seek to understand you. I may not agree
with you, nor do I have a need for you to agree with me; but, if we understand each
other first, there’s at least some
hope that we’ll move closer to agreement.
And see, here’s the other thing:
since the earliest days of this wonderful American experiment, this inability (or
unwillingness) to tolerate differences has existed. Remember reading about the infamous
duels to the death (Aaron Burr actually killed sitting Vice President,
Alexander Hamilton, in a duel that emerged out of the long and bitter partisan rivalry
between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.)
And
what was gained? One human death; the virtual end in dishonor of Aaron
Burr's political career, and what some have argued was the final nail in the coffin of the
Jeffersonian Federalist party.
And what has been gained by the
bitterness and animosity that has continued until this moment because we humans
cannot tolerate differences? Hmmm? I’ll wait.
On Tuesday evening President Trump
echoed the same whine that has come from every president and politician since
(at least) President Nixon: “Why can’t we set aside our partisan differences?”
The reason is that the whiner, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal, conservative,
independent or Libertarian, means: “Why can’t you who disagree with me stop
disagreeing with me?”
So, how’s that working out for you? for
our nation?
I
don’t want Republicans and Libertarians to agree totally with me!
Democracy flourishes on lively debate in which all parties listen to each other
and try to find the best in each other’s position.
I truly believe that we all have
something of value to offer, and that many of our harshest disagreements are matters of
degree, if we only will listen to each other. I refuse to believe that any one party—or any one person—has all of the
truth about anything. But actualizing that truism would require each of us to
acknowledge and accept the possibility that “I” may not be absolutely,
irrefutably, and eternally right about everything.
Oh, well. I can dream.
That’s the way I see it through the
Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together
in the Walk,
Jim
[1] Within
my limited circle of acquaintances there are several who claim to be political “independents,”
but whose conversation mirrors and supports virtually anything that opposes the
Democratic party.
[2]
And it always is my intention to be the same kind of listener; in fact, I have
specific training in listening. I hope I am a good listener.
No comments:
Post a Comment