Imagine the usual cliché. Two people meet, most likely possible mates, and their initial attraction to one another invites them into harmless discourse. After an hour, or maybe even two, it has become evident to both people that this is a good match. After a tenuous start filled with awkward moments they were both surprised and delighted with how smooth and easy it went. It seemed too good to be true. Their mutual love for dogs, the outdoors, and their shared guilty pleasure for TLC reality TV shows has established respect for both mates. Further discussion ensues and now they are not only amazed by their commonalities but each other’s intelligence. Now that recognized respect begins to enter dangerous waters as they begin to talk about socially heavier matters. And now it’s as if all the attraction and respect the two have begun to develop for one another is about to be thrown overboard now that person 1 knows that person 2 is a Republican. The opposed thinkers began to ask themselves “could I really live with someone who is so wrong?”
How different are we from these two people who will disregard all the respect that they have taken the time to construct for one another just because of their contrasting political views? The question of whether people can like and respect someone, even with someone they disagree with is at the heart of a phenomenon that has turned into a social disease threatening our political system.
It seems that as a society we are fragmenting because we emphasize our differences rather than our commonalities and these differences define us and prevent us from seeking accommodation and understanding. They distort our judgments of each other inducing us to think of those who disagree with us as stupid or evil.
“People confuse the intensity of their beliefs with the likelihood that they are right.”
–Michael Josephson
As I have been budding out of my youth, I have been invited to participate in adult discussions—and due to our current election, the diverse and often contemptuously articulated opinions of our running candidates fans the flames of partisanship.
No one really listens or considers what the other side is saying except to formulate a new put down—I’ve gotten pretty good at that myself.
I have personally observed extremely intelligent people descend to insults rather than insights during political discussions.
I have grown to understand we are unfortunately accustomed to allowing our political views to dictate our opinion of a person’s morality and intelligence.
My father is an ethicist—don’t feel bad if you don’t know what that means, most don’t—and he had a radio show where he was given every morning to voice his opinion on any matter he chose. So hearing my father publically announce his beliefs became a routine and taught me to fearlessly share opinions of my own. But as I have become more educated and passionate about my beliefs, I have found it hard to not immediately disregard opposing views.
In one of my dad’s radio commentaries he discussed this problem with a name: blind partisanship. He said, “Blind partisanship is a toxic disease that threatens to destroy our democracy. It turns politics into and endless competition and generates a win/lose mentality that does not allow for compromise. This is fatal since the most pressing issues of our day are bound to generate disagreements that are is so wide and certain that compromise is essential.”
It’s one thing to share our political opinions but it’s not helpful if all we do shut down the conflicting views. These turns would be a discourse into a battle and produces the fallacy that political positions are about right and wrong rather than just opinions on what is right and wrong. What’s worse, we use these opinions as a measure of one’s character and intellect.
We have allowed ourselves to disregard the fact that political opinions not only deal with ethics, but accessibility as well.
Seeing everything in the binary light of good and bad, or even right and wrong, prevents us from seeing the multi-dimensions of politics. The goal of politics is to find a solution, but because we are unable to address the complexities of the issues, including the possibility that differing views may be right and the necessity of democracy that we find compromise solutions, we ultimately never find a solution at all.
It seems to me that before we can even tackle controversial issues in politics, we must stop associating our beliefs with truth. If not, we see everything only through the lens of our pre-existing opinions – that’s a form of prejudice.
“There was a universal language in the world that everyone understood … It was the language of enthusiasm, of things accomplished with love and purpose, and as part of a search for something believed in and desired.”
– Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist
We must realize that there are other lenses that cause us to see different things. Ours is just one of the many ways you can look at that problem. Blind partisanship has hindered the progression of our society and has altered the meaning of compromise to become equivalent to a lack of integrity. We must realize that honor does not require stubbornness or close-mindedness or arrogance.
If we truly listen to and seriously try to understand the values and beliefs of those we disagree with, we may find that we actually have more common ground than we think and we may be able to find solutions we can all live with. If not, at least we can realize that even smart and good people can disagree with us.
Incidentally, those two potential mates have learned to tolerate their differences and celebrate their commonalities and they’ve been happily married for 23 years—they go by the names of Mary Matalin and James Carville and their living proof that blind partisanship can be overcome.
OSG's Global Issues Blog 