The Other Side

I’ve been thinking a great deal about “the other side.” We ask ourselves, “How can people support them? What could they be thinking? What horrible people!” This line of thinking is not helpful or healthy. It just creates distance and distaste. 

No, I am not going to follow that up with an “of course.” Discounting people’s skepticism or distrust of authority does not move any conversation forward. I always want my students to think critically and to analyze information through multiple lenses. Use of those lenses often makes discussion and argument more complex. But our time is one of complexity; simplifying these issues and attitudes got us into this trouble in the first place. 

I keep having an imaginary conversation with someone who sees politics and our country’s current situation very differently than I do. How would such a conversation go? The models online are not helpful. They are entrenchments and trolling. Changing someone’s mind online has become a sour joke. 

So one approach might be: how can we better understand each other? Can we discover places where we are in agreement? Where do we share concerns? 

What if the goal, instead of trying to convince, trap, or trump was to discover, learn, and understand. What if the whole “I am going to get you to join my party and vote differently in the next election” thing was dismissed and, instead, the goal was: can I leave with a more clear understanding of where we agree, where we disagree, and why? 

Would that help make the conversation less shrill? That is another aspect of this division. Defenses and dukes are up, ears are closed, and civility is at a premium. The entire situation reminds me of fights on the middle school playfield. 

How would such a conversation take place? We have divided ourselves into siloed echo chambers, online and off. We “unfriend” people who disagree with us or post things that make us uncomfortable. We socialize with people who either share our views or, if they do not, don’t bring up sensitive topics. We’ll talk sex, money, and religion before we talk politics. 

If such conversations were to happen, how would we keep it polite and focused on understanding? It would have to be small. You don’t have to yell if there is no crowd to yell over. The us vs. them mentality of the sports arena is less likely to develop at a table of four. We do have to keep it from developing. 

There would have to be some simple ground rules that would probably parallel the structure of negotiations or business meetings: no interrupting, use of reflective listening, focus on subjects instead of personal attacks, making sure that each contribution clearly connects to the ones before it, and so on. 

So if we got one or two Democrats and Republicans, supporters of different candidates, and sat down, would we be able to do this with some practice and assistance? 

Yeah, I am thinking that, too: so what? So we sit down and learn more about each other. Might that drive us further apart? Might that horrify us? Might that turn our neighbors into monsters? 

Perhaps. 

But perhaps it might humanize them. Perhaps it might let us understand what others value and how those values translate into political ideas and action. Perhaps it would help us relearn how to civilly disagree and encourage us to build bridges instead of moats. 

We desperately need this right now. I don’t think any political leaders have the ability or foresight to make something like this happen. Their thinking is too polar and partisan. 

So it is up to us. Can we learn about each other? Can we reach across the divide, the aisle, the difference? If we insist on playing winner take all, we lose all. If we take another approach, we could increase the odds of all of us winning. 

Do we really want more of this? Are we willing to stop yelling at our televisions and start talking to each other? 

It turns out that there are organizations working to do this! Recently, a friend emailed me about the American Exchange Program, which puts students from different backgrounds, areas of the country, and points of view in touch with each other. This story from the PBS News Hour provides several other groups who connect adults. 

I encourage you to view the news story (it is also embedded on this page). I have read about some of these organizations. It is time to do more than bemoan the divided nature of our country. It is time to reach across the divide, aisle, and mile – and begin to really unify our country again. 

Let's Agree: We Need A Children's Bill of Rights

Nothing is more important than our children. How we treat them, both individually and collectively is the real measure of who we are. In this time of division and dissent, I am looking for places that provide common ground. I think the love of our children may be such a place. Can we all agree that all policies should be evaluated on their effect on children? No law, rule, order, or other government action should be passed that hurts kids! 

Children don’t pay bills. They don’t vote. Most of their decisions are made by adults. If they have any power at all, it is only through influencing the adults around them. They are one of our most vulnerable and important populations. Can we all agree that their well-being must be at the top of all agendas?

As a teacher, I sometimes think of my students as little adults. I forget that they don’t control most of their world. If they are late, it is as likely to be the fault of their means of transportation. They don’t drive. They may be pulled out of school due to the choices of their parents or guardians. Getting homework done is sometimes impossible due to things happening at home. I need to remind myself that they are just children!

I wonder if lawmakers and elected officials have the same challenge. Do they forget how adults’ choices affect children? Do they attribute more control and agency to minors than they really have?

Children are the collateral damage of many of our public policies. If parents don’t make enough money, children are affected. When healthcare is too expensive or difficult to obtain, children get sick. When policies that protect adults from discrimination, deportation, and degradation are undermined or eliminated, their children pay the price.

Every policy should be evaluated through the lens of its effect on children: Will this help the kids? Will this make children’s lives better? If this is going to create a challenge for families with children, and how do we help them address that?

Children aren’t to blame for any of their parents’ struggles, but they share them. While there are many voices screaming to protect unborn children, voices are desperately needed to keep protecting them as they grow up.

While protecting them from certain ideas, philosophies, or encounters with different people may be on some lists, can we please elevate protecting them from hunger, crime, sickness, and illiteracy?

How about a Children’s Bill of Rights! Here is a start:

Regardless of political, religious, or ideological labels, every child deserves to be:

Loved and wanted

Fed and well nourished 

Healthy and have prompt and affordable access to doctors and medicine

Well educated

Safe in their neighborhoods, homes, and communities

Free from bullying, abuse, and mistreatment

Given freedom to grow, develop, explore, and play

Housed comfortably and appropriately

Free of worry for the safety of their family

Of course, there is more; this list is just a beginning. Yet, can we agree to this? Can everyone say that these items are the beginning on which we can build greater agreements? If we can agree on this, perhaps we can move our country forward and help everyone, no matter what their affiliations or alliances or age, to pursue life, liberty, and happiness!

Learning Is Not Possible Without Mistakes: Being Wrong

No one likes to be wrong. Mistakes are not our goal. However, without mistakes, without being wrong, we don’t grow. Learning is a messy business and mistakes are a critical part of the process.

I was introduced to this video though a magnificent blog post by a teacher from Colorado. She uses this video after the election as a way to open students to the process of disagreeing, listening, and being open to change.

Take a look:

Let's Talk Politics

It is uncomfortable to discuss the Presidential election with some of my friends. It is a sore subject. On Facebook, there is both serious and lighthearted commentary about political postings. It used to be that money, sex, and religion were the topics that polite people avoided. Now there is a fourth and it is not a good thing.

Party politics has come to resemble religion. Although I would never consider myself a person of “faith,” I am highly religious. But I do not see any politician as a god figure or any party as a church. These are human beings and human created institutions that, as far as I know, have not received the seal of approval from any deity. Yet our political discourse sounds like battling missionaries!

Why do I feel uncomfortable and awkward when the election is mentioned in certain company? Why do people sometimes preface their statements with, “Well, I’m sure you’ll disagree but…” when caution is thrown to the political wind and we briefly and painfully open the subject, only to be reminded by our spouses and friends that “we agreed not to talk about this!”

Why can’t we talk politics? Why is it friendship ending? Why do blood pressures and voices end up raised beyond a healthy level? What is going on here? I wrote last year about my concern that dialogue was dying in our government. Now I am concerned that it is dying around dinner tables and water coolers.

And the old excuse of, “You’re not going to change anyone’s mind anyway” is the fashionable rationalization. Instead of “ conversion,”  could we engage in a conversation that both brings us together and gives us greater understanding? It could be a positive process.

Let’s talk politics. Let’s talk about important issues that affect our families, communities, and nation! Let’s listen to each other. I am suggesting discussion and exploration not debate!

I don’t know everything. I don’t read all the news or follow all the fact checkers and pundits. I pick and choose. Bias from news sources is inevitable. I don’t believe anyone who says that, “the choice is obvious” because if that were true, I could talk about this issue with everyone and we’d all hug and smile. The issues aren’t simple, easy, or clear. And they certainly aren’t black and white. Oversimplifications do not foster good decisions and may be an unethical attempt at persuasion.

And we must have an ethical discussion: one in which we look at issues as fairly and factually as possible.  Can we do it with a computer nearby so we can look things up as we go along? Can we evaluate the information sources together?

It won’t be easy and it won’t be fast. Could that be the real reason we won’t talk? Is it we don’t want to take the time and energy such dialogue will require? We know we’re right and those idiots are wrong, so why waste the effort? Another rationalization that only keeps us apart and in the dark.

The more we refuse to talk to our friends, neighbors, and even family about these areas of disagreement, the wider the chasm grows and the more license we give politicians to do the same. I want progress in Washington! I want members of both parties to talk to each other and create solutions together! I don’t want a one party system! I don’t want a bully system that stomps out its opposition. Minority voices, be they the minority party, minority viewpoints, or minority groups are critical to 

Don’t Let Dialogue Die

As I witnessed the ugly and inflexible discourse surrounding the recent federal debt crisis, I wondered if dialogue was dead. Legislators, commentators, and agitators were screaming at each other but no one was listening. No one had any interest in “finding common ground” or “moving toward the center.” It was a publicity game and the one who yelled the loudest longest was going to win.

So the rest of us lost. Since our representatives were so intransigent and inflexible, their game of brinksmanship took all of us off the brink. More and more, that is the tone of political rhetoric: we won’t back down! We won’t back down means we’re unconditionally right. We won’t back down means that my view is the only view worth discussing. We won’t back down means we won’t even entertain the possibility that we might be even a little bit wrong. We won’t back down means that the views of those who disagree with me, democracy be damned, should be disregarded.

There are things about which we do not compromise. But they are very few and they should be extremely clear. Every issue cannot be the line in the sand. If the non-negotiable list is too long, then the real message is that if you don’t play the game my way, I won’t let the game be played.

We all have encountered bullies and prima donnas who must have their way on even the finest points. This point of view seems to have infected our political process and is in danger of destroying one of the most important features of our representative democracy: the crucible of debate and discussion.

If I don’t get my way, says the two year old, I am going to kick and scream and raise such a ruckus that you will do anything to make me quiet. I will cause you so much pain that you will give in to my unreasonable views. We’ve all witnessed this: the panicked parent with the tantrum throwing two year old in the check out line. Perhaps we have all given in to that but we know what happens when giving in to tantrums becomes the primary parenting strategy. Our job as a parent is to get our children to use their words and listen to us. Perhaps we need to parent our politicians.

But this was THE issue. This was the issue worth throwing a tantrum. This was the BIG one! Baloney! That is a politician’s (or toddler’s) excuse for saying what I really wanted was to get as much attention as possible and thus get my way. If you ask your friends, family, and neighbors what are the areas that, if under attack, they would yell and scream, it would not be the debt ceiling or the budget. It might be free speech, the right to vote (which too many people neglect) or issues of choice and self-determination. Maybe it would be taxes, but even there I doubt it. Ask them when they have called or written their representatives.

When the person at my door says, “ You are going to hell if you don’t practice religion my way,” or the salesman on TV says, “The only way to be healthy (or popular) is to use my product,” we should be suspicious. When we are threatened with doom and gloom because people are so sure of themselves, it is a warning of small minded thinking and a lack of listening. There are always multiple solutions. There are always multiple “right” points of view. To dismiss that reality is to see the world through a narrow tunnel and miss the more important and larger view.

Doubt is a good thing. It indicates that the thought, “I might be wrong” has checked ego and arrogance. Compromise isn’t capitulation; it is collaboration and the creation of community. It is coming together through listening. Those who will not listen, those who insist they are right without reservation, are more dangerous than any polarizing issue. Because if dialogue dies, democracy goes with it.