Let’s Step Back…
by John Weckerle
We begin the new year, if a little late, with at least the first part of a wish list for the upcoming 12 months. We’re not sure we’ll see any of this, but at least in our opinion, it would be good to see at least some of it.
In the coming year, I’d like to see our national discussions focus a little more on what we have in common and the goals we all wish to achieve. As Abraham Lincoln famously stated: “A house divided cannot stand.” Differences in philosophy, ideology, and belief are a fundamental part of any free society, but they seem to have been endowed with far more influence over the nation’s business than seems appropriate. These differences are natural, but they have become extreme in their ability to result in divisiveness and discord. The tendency seems to be to insist that the “other side” is wrong and must be thwarted, regardless of the issue at hand or any potential partial merit of the “other side’s” position. A refusal to listen, to accept that there may be more to learn, to reconsider our positions, and to respect those with whom we disagree on one issue or another is not the sign of a healthy, free, and truly democratic society, and I’d like to see a greater focus on solutions as opposed to arguments.
The unrelenting clinging to ideology we see on both sides of virtually any important issue these days is divisive and counterproductive. All too often, we are willing to cast aside or ignore fact, reasonable analysis, scientific consensus, and logical debate wherever they do not fit into our particular ideological systems. Beliefs are fine, but we should always remember that the it is the world, and not our worldview, that is real, and we should be willing to adjust the latter when confronted with hard fact or reasonable logic – or at least acknowledge that two different but reasonably intelligent people, confronted with the same or similar information, may come to two very different logical conclusions.
We consider this important because of the degree of vitriol and acrimony that has become all too common in the debate on national issues. All the name-calling may be satisfying to some, but derisiveness is divisive. From our point of view, those who indulge in false accusations and personal or character attacks against those with whom they disagree have far less credibility than those who dispassionately lay out their position and their criticisms of the “other side’s.” It is one thing to say that something another person says is not true, and quite another to call him or her a liar. It is one thing to question a public figure’s motives, and quite another to state that he or she is corrupt.
I heard a radio interview in the November-December time frame in which a protest organizer was remarking on a public figure. She stated how upset she was about this particular person, and it became clear that she detested him. However, when pressed (repeatedly) by the reporter, she was unable to come up with a single example of any his actions that upset her. Whatever the initial issues were, it was clear that her objections had become primarily personal in nature.
I had an experience last year that perhaps highlights the negative effects than an over-attachment to ideology can have. I disagreed with an individual not on his/her overall position, but on a statement of fact he/she was citing in his/her criticism of somebody with whom he/she disagreed, which was simply not true. The reaction was rather extreme – a rather blistering attack (on a different basis) against the original object of criticism and what amounted to an attack on both my character and my intelligence, after which I was told that the person in question no longer wished to know me. I was, uncharacteristically, astonished by the intensity of the emotion that this minor disagreement apparently invoked.
Whatever effect this experience had on me personally, it also served to highlight the intensely emotional attachment that many people are feeling to their beliefs and ideologies. This is, again, natural, but it does not necessarily excuse any or all actions taken on behalf of a given belief. Most of us were taught early on that name-calling is bad, that fighting is inappropriate, and falsely accusing somebody of something is unacceptable. I’d like people on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the issues, to consider that their arguments will be far more convincing, if a little less satisfying to deliver, without the all-too-common insults hurled at those holding an opposing viewpoint. Our freedom resides largely in our right to hold differing opinions, and we should perhaps all consider displaying a little more respect – or at least a little less disregard – for that right.