Recognizing Humanity - the Real Win

I understand team rivalries.  I grew up in Michigan where you are either for U of M or MSU – there is no in between.  But, despite what the media and perhaps your neighbors or Facebook friends would have you believe, politics is not a team rivalry.  It is not simply Red vs. Blue.

If one is really going to take a political position, one must understand more than what color their team wears.  One must delve into the issues, understand their history, their facts and falsities, and the consequences both short and long term of any action or proposed action taken in regard to those issues.

What true understanding requires is that one touch the humanity and not just the uniform worn by someone who represents a different side on an issue.  One effective way for individuals to recognize their shared humanity despite policy or political differences is to actually interact with one another.  That is what happens when people have a real conversation.

A conversation is “a talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.”  The key word here is “exchanged”; the conversants share and exchange ideas.  They are not in it to win, but to understand the ideas of another and to broaden their own perspective about that person or an issue or whatever might be the topic of the conversation.  A conversation is not simply a game between two different teams in which the players’ primary goal is to win, not to learn.

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have such real conversations on Facebook.  I have followed many and participated in a few Facebook “conversations” and have yet to see or experience one in which there was actually an exchange in the sense of sharing and listening and actually considering one another’s ideas as a springboard to new ideas and deeper understandings. 

No matter how civil the discussion (“I understand what you are saying, but….”) they all really go something like this:  The initial Poster presents something which is open to more than one viewpoint but which takes or at least leans to one view only which is the view in which the Poster believes.  There will be some responses in the form of “likes” or similar acceptance of the view presented.  This of course satisfies the addictive sugar of Facebook for the Poster.  Eventually someone will either disagree or point out additional or contrary opinions or facts, all of which are inconvenient for the Poster and those aligned with the Poster. 

While one might call that an exchange of ideas, it is not.  It is a presentation by the other team.  An exchange requires more than presentation.  It requires an acceptance (though not necessarily an adoption) of the other side’s presentation.  It requires a desire to understand the contrary or inconvenient presentations. 

That exchange does not exist on Facebook.  Rather, once inconvenient information is presented the “conversation” becomes not one of exchange and sharing but one of each side trying to win their point.  People with inconvenient information for that point are sometimes ignored, sometimes deleted, and often called names that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed (things like “you must be a nut job”; “only an idiot would post that”; “no one cares what you think”; “you should get your information from [my team’s news] since [your team’s sources] just lie”; “your offerings are both wrong and worthless”; and much worse). 

The “conversation” becomes simply about showing the other participants how right one’s comments are, as well as collecting those “likes.”  It is about winning.

A real conversation, rather than devolving into deaf assertions of righteousness of each side, grows into a new and shared understanding.  How does that happen and why is it impossible on Facebook or similar impersonal social media venues?

When we meet face to face we are looking at another person, not some posted words on a page.  Recognizing our shared humanity provides the participants with some humility.  In social media posts, even when many posters are involved in a conversation, each poster is really only talking to him or herself.  The addictive “likes” encourage each poster to repost essentially the same view over and over.  Those “likes” solidify the self-righteousness and, like cheerleaders at an athletic contest, encourage each poster to try even harder to win.  There really is no reward for listening on Facebook because the venue obliterates the shared humanity that is essential to any real conversation in which ideas are actually exchanged, thought about, and discussed.

Humanity is “a virtue associated with basic ethics of altruism derived from the human condition. It also symbolizes human love and compassion towards each other.”  If the humanity of conversants is obscured, the compassion necessary to respect and listen to those involved in a “conversation” is also obscured.  Rather than a time of sharing and understanding the “conversation” becomes a contest where participants choose their teams and their sides; it becomes about winning and perhaps also about demolishing the opponent.

It is not just social media that is obscuring humanity with the result of more animosity and hatred.  Indeed, the team spirit of winning at any cost seems to have taken over far too many of our once more human interactions.  Politics:  red or blue and beat up (literally or figuratively) the opposing team.  Identity politics:  the identity group must demolish all other groups (opposing teams) in order to win.  Life style:  no tolerance for anything different because the favored life style must win against all others.  Even history:  its complexities and nuances are no longer allowed as opposing viewpoints each must win rather than use the complexities to elucidate and accept varying views.

I was thinking about the ways that people really help others who are struggling in some way.  Every truly effective help that I can think of involves the helper reaching out and touching the shared humanity of the one being helped.  There is a difference between that and drive by “help” that sees some problem “over there” with this or that identity group or cause and simply throws money or support at it.  That is not that different from throwing “likes” at a Facebook post. 

Such drive by help fails to stop and recognize the humanity of the other.  It is that kind of help that leaves those being “helped” demeaned and dependent.  It does not see those being helped as equal in their humanity.  Causes and drive by help might be based on a positive idea, but they do nothing.

What does help, what does lead to productive conversations as well as productive betterment of society requires a recognition of everyone’s shared humanity.  That of course requires both work and humility.  The humility of accepting that we each are no better than the other.  Yes, different skills, different places in life, different minds, different in every aspect of our individuality, but at the same time no better than others.  That is our humanity.

And it takes work.  It is easy to post something on a Facebook wall or Twitter feed.  It is harder to open one’s mind and really listen to someone who does not think as you do.  It is easy to drive by and throw money or support to a cause; it is much harder to do the actual work to improve a situation or move society forward.

In the end, we can work to win, or we can work to find our shared humanity.  Elections may be about who wins, but the underlying policies, like life itself, must be recognized as far more complex than just some team rivalry.   Life is far more than a team sport and those who are not us are not our opponents against whom we must win.

*Addendum 9/11/20:  Apparently this quote needs some explanation or context.  It was written by Anton Chekhov in 1894 during the height of the industrial revolution.  He was pointing out that those who actually work on things that help to better society for all mankind show more humanity than those (often wealthy or elites) who sit home and proclaim their support of and need to work for particular causes but actually themselves never do anything for the cause or toward the betterment of humanity.  The specific items (electricity, steam, chastity, vegetarianism) are simply chosen from the times (electricity & steam from work of the industrial revolution; chastity & vegetarianism from common popularly proclaimed causes).  The context of an example of love for humanity is the intention of placing this quote here; it is not intended as support of or antipathy toward any of the particular words used.

 

Revenge, Jealousy, and 2019

I did not write in this blog for some time because, quite frankly, it seemed pointless.  Each political “crisis” or issue was beginning to seem like just a rehash, over and over, of the same points, just dressed in different clothes. 

On any issue, the President asserts a position fairly consistent with the platform on which he was elected.  The Democrats go all out to oppose that position, primarily by ad hominem attacks on the President and his supporters.  Generally, the President’s positions tend to look to country first while the opposition tends to be less concerned about America than about a new world globalism ethic (that in the end sounds much like the oft tried and failed socialism and often looks even more like nothing more than a grab for their own power). 

But, the opposition positions often conflict with those held by the same individuals before Trump’s election.  That leads (or should lead) one to conclude that it really isn’t about the issues at all, but about a hatred of Trump and the fact that he bested them in the election and that the entire country is not fawning at the feet of the Democrats and their positions.

I had hoped that 2019 would bring an end to this ridiculous childish behavior; that people would grow up and begin to honestly discuss important issues based on objective and rational thought.  But, sadly, it does not appear that this is the case.

2019 brings us a continuation of the revenge and jealousy that has been the calling card of the anti-Trump crowd for the past 2 years.  New Senator Romney preludes his new office with a tirade against the President in today's Washington Post, rehashing his angry and jealous comments made throughout the campaign.  Romney’s niece and chairwoman of the Republican party appropriately replied “POTUS is attacked and obstructed by the MSM media and Democrats 24/7. For an incoming Republican freshman senator to attack @realdonaldtrump as their first act feeds into what the Democrats and media want and is disappointing and unproductive.”

Unproductive is a key word here.  How long do we have to suffer through the emotional angst of those who disagreed and disagree with the President and feel the need to act out because they didn’t or are not getting their way?  Revenge is the instinctual go-to when people believe they have been wronged.  But we need to rise above that instinct unless we prefer a never-ending conflict (and, never-ending is not an overstatement if one considers the many conflicts that have gone on for thousands of years based primarily on a cycle of revenge).

Until our politicians can rise above the personal and instinctual response of revenge and retaliation for not getting what they thought they should, we can expect to simply rehash the same personal attacks in the guise of whatever issue is the special of the day.  This is not productive; it is hurtful to our country.  The grown-ups (if there are any), need to acknowledge that they lost and move forward.  This does not mean abandoning their positions on issues, but it does mean abandoning the personal malice, hatred, jealousy they feel for the fact that they lost to someone they personally do not admire and that there are those who choose other people and policies over them and the policies they favor.

Once this is acknowledged, then and only then can we perhaps move forward with productive conversations between those with differing views on the political problems of the day.  Politicians need to remember that it is not about them, it is not personal; it is about our country and our world.  Grown-ups can understand this, can see beyond themselves, and can converse (which includes both speaking and listening!) with those of differing viewpoints, to reach compromises that are good for all of the people, even if not providing revenge for a personal hurt or jealousy.

2019 is still young.  Let us hope that we will see an end to revenge politics and a beginning of mature, reasonable, and rational conversations among those of differing views.  That can only be good for all of us.  Happy New Year.

Battle of the Bands

So much is going on in politics these days, so you may wonder why I have not written – about the upcoming election, the Democrat mobs and Republican jobs, immigration, Khashoggi, and the wealth of other issues currently in the news.  It is not that I am no longer interested.   I am what some might call a political junkie or obsessed with politics, but mainly I follow these and other stories with a passion because they have a significant effect on the country that I know and love.

So, why haven’t I written?  Well, actually I have.  You can scroll through the last couple of years and find blogs on immigration, MeToo, abortion, various political races, the courts, socialism, lack of civility, lack of communication, education, the constitution, the economy, jobs, Democrats, Republicans, the Left, etc., etc.  So, I have written and what good has it done other than to allow me to vent my opinions?  Those who agree may think I have articulated their thoughts well, but they have those opinions already. 

Those who hold other views likely do not read these blogs, or, if they do, likely dismiss them as the ravings of a crazy deplorable.  Why do I say that – because that is the reaction from the Left whenever it is revealed that I do not hold their viewpoint.  Revealing one’s “deplorable” status to a “friend” who holds Leftist views is a good way to lose that friendship (but, then, was it really ever a friendship if it ended when it was no longer an echo chamber for the supposed friend’s views?).

And the issues persist; the blogs from past days/years could just as easily be written today.

What we need is not more blogs or blog posts; what we need is actual interactive conversation between individuals who are willing to listen to one another, use their minds, think, ask questions, and not pre-judge based on memorized memes or otherwise simplistic characterizations of complex issues.  Written conversation is very different.  One can imagine blogs by different authors as various voices in a conversation, but those voices are not interactive in the way that an in-person conversation can be.  Rather, they are more like speeches directed outward, with no openness for hearing other views and no ability to question and alter positions in light of new information or other views that might prompt a second look at one’s own thinking.

So, we have blog or opinion piece upon opinion piece, like a battle of the bands, each shouting its own sound from its own little space.  But, sadly, even in person conversations these days are more like that battle than an actual interaction and thoughtful exchange of ideas.  I have previously written blogs about such conversations.  I had yet another today, this one about immigration. 

When my lunchmate in an otherwise to that point pleasant, non-political, and non-controversial conversation suddenly said she believed we should just let all 7000 migrants coming our way into our country without question, I said I disagreed.  I was immediately called a racist.  I suggested that I simply believed in immigration laws while she believed in open borders and that those were two distinct viewpoints but that holding a view against open borders did not necessarily make one racist.  That comment prompted her to call me inhumane and ignorant; I was told that I did not understand that people want to come here because it is better than their country.  I agreed America was a better country than many and asked if, since America is better than most countries, would she let everyone in?  If not stopping at 7000 would she stop at 20,000?  100,000? Where would she draw the line, if ever?  And if never, what would she do when this country reached a population that meant it simply could no longer be the country it is today?  She did not answer these questions, nor did she want to know why I held my position.  She was not interested in discussing the pros and cons of open borders vs. those with laws limiting immigration.  Instead, she told me I was crazy, an idiot, stupid, uneducated (no matter my graduate education), and other names I will not here repeat.  That was the end of the discussion, the lunch, and most probably our friendship.  It was not a conversation.

If people are inclined to just yell epithets at those who hold different views (in the above case, the preferred epithet for those not in favor of open borders was racist, followed by the more general epithets of various forms of stupidity), then there can be no conversation, no understanding of differing views, and no road to compromise and resolution of difficult issues.

So, the question then is what does one do when one is opinionated on certain issues and wants to have a discussion with others who may or may not hold the same views in order to better understand the many different ways that always exist to look at complex questions?  A battle of the bands may be a fun diversion on a warm summer night, but using that model for what should be difficult but productive conversations is not a way to encourage the tolerance and understanding necessary for a free democracy.

So, as this blog evidences, I will continue to write.  I will put my opinions out there and maybe they will prompt someone to think more deeply about why they hold a similar view or someone else to understand why someone would hold a view that is different from theirs.  Perhaps they can be a model that deeper thought than simply repeating party lines or memes is necessary to understand and solve the complex issues with which our country and our world are faced today.  I can always hope.