When I was six and in first grade my older brother would
teach me about what he was learning in school.
Often his Jr. High learning went well beyond my first-grade curriculum;
nonetheless, I loved learning about the many different things that he knew.
I can remember when my big brother taught me about our First
Amendment freedoms. I was fascinated by
this aspect of our democracy. I grasped
only a very basic idea of the complex concepts that my brother tried to explain
but I couldn’t wait to tell my best friend about them. The next morning I ran onto the playground,
found my friend, and told her that we lived in a free society and we could do
and say and think what we wanted. She
looked at me like I was a bit nuts, and said, “That’s not true. I had to pay for my Popsicle yesterday. It wasn’t free, so we don’t live in a free
society.”
That’s pretty good logic for a 6-year-old. But I knew she was wrong, that living in a
free society was somehow still true, despite the cost of Popsicles. I just couldn’t express why. I didn’t have the understanding that my
brother did, so all I could do was just repeat the “sound bite” from his
lecture that had stuck with me: “Yes we do live in a free society.” I didn’t have the depth of knowledge or related
education and learning sufficient to explain what that meant. So, after a few repetitions of “yes we do”
and “no we don’t” our dialogue ended.
We never discussed this again, and we remained friends, but
I think that interchange to some extent changed the relationship between us. I thought she was stupid because she didn’t
understand me, and she thought I was an idiot for claiming our society was free
when it clearly wasn’t.
This immature reaction is normal for a pair of 6-year-olds
faced with a discussion about something beyond what they at that point are
educated to understand. It is not
appropriate for mature adults. Yet, sadly, this is the sort of reaction we are
likely to encounter when presenting a political opinion to someone holding a
differing view.
Had we 6-year-olds had a deeper comprehension of what we
were addressing, a better understanding of the word “freedom” in the context of
our democracy, we likely could have engaged in an actual discussion of the
questions raised by each other’s assertion.
We could have both listened and explained to one another. We would have been able to, without name
calling, understand each other’s viewpoints and the issues raised. Differences, rather than resulting in insurmountable
obstacles and irreconcilable name calling would have produced a constructive sharing
of information and working together to resolve differences.
That is what mature people do. Immature people, people who are making
statements about things that they don’t understand, act like 6-year-olds. Because they often are simply parroting someone
else’s rhetoric without any real understanding of the complexities of the issue
or viewpoint, they do not have the ability to grasp and understand a differing
point of view. They have simply adopted
a point of view (or sound bite) superficially, and when that view is not agreed
with or is challenged, they think there is something wrong with the one challenging it, and often see it as a personal attack and then respond with either attack or complete dismissal of the challenger. There is no tolerance.
This is not only unproductive; it is dangerous. When people are willing to accept assertions
without their own investigation or critical thinking, without even attempting
to hear, let alone understand another viewpoint, there can be no resolution of differences. Instead, the “conversation” will be some form
of my 6-year-old “yes it is; no it isn’t.”
It is only when one really understands the viewpoint that
they are professing that they can openly listen to other view points and
critically assess those views against their own, understanding the position of
the person holding the alternate view point and honing in on where there are
places for agreement as well as disagreement.
Only by exploring one another’s viewpoints and rationale behind them can
those who seem to disagree come to any sort of mutual understanding about
issues raised by those viewpoints.
Similarly, only when one truly grasps the depths and nuances
of what they are professing can they explain their position to another. Until then, disagreements become attacks as
mere soundbites are simply thrown back and forth. Disagreements generate not learning, but name
calling or even more violent responses as the 6-year-old type responses
escalate into what might be akin to playground violence or rock-throwing. These are typical responses when one does not
have the education or maturity to deal with what one does not, or is not
willing to, understand.
It is not unreasonable that two six-year-olds would not be
able to have a conversation about different viewpoints when the underlying
subject was more complex and profound than they were ready to handle. But it is less reasonable to tolerate such
inability from adults who consider themselves educated, informed, and mature.
Our political discourse these days is like that of 6-year-olds. People spout their party line. If disagreed with they name-call the one who
disagrees with what they see as an appropriate epithet: bigot, racist, deplorable, etc. I, personally, have been called most of the epithets
in vogue by the Democrats simply for holding a position on one or another issue
that is contrary to theirs. I have yet
to find a member of the Progressive or Socialist Left who is willing to sit
down and have a rational and mature conversation about why we might favor
different policies towards an issue that is of concern to us both.
Had my family not moved, I suspect that at some point my
friend and I would have studied the Constitution together in school, developed
a better understanding about it and the principles of our democracy, and had
another discussion. I would like to
believe that we would listen and learn from one another, rather than simply
reacting with complete negativity to the one holding a different view. I also believe that in this particular
instance, once we defined what we meant by “freedom” in the context of our
societal principles that we would find that we were not really standing in
opposition, or even very far at all from one another. And any differences we did have would not be
insurmountable obstacles to our ability to work together to resolve any issues
presented by our differing views.
Such conversations require tolerance. Tolerance of viewpoints that differ from one’s
own. They also require a desire to reach
a common goal – in my example conversation it would have been to understand
freedom in the context of democracy, its meaning and its limitations. Our goal might have been to resolve issues we
saw within those parameters that would make are freedoms clearer and more
secure. We would need to understand one
another’s viewpoints to do that.
When we have a Democrat party that is focused not on having
a dialogue with their Republican counterparts to address and improve problems
facing our country, but is instead singularly focused on removing President
Donald J. Trump from office, it is impossible to have anything more than the
equivalent of the 6-year-olds’ dialogue.
We see this playing out in the impeachment. The Democrats have their narrative – facts be
damned. If you counter their narrative, if
you oppose them in any way, Adam Schiff tells us “you will have your head on a
pike.” Said with the maturity of a 6-year-old.
If we want this country to survive, we must remember that
its greatness requires tolerance, wisdom, and maturity. There is not much of that going around these
days. It is time to grow up!
No comments:
Post a Comment