Discourse or Discord??

                                                        

     I have never been the kind of person that has a lot to say, ironically.  High school and college classes were usually exercises in listening for me, mostly lectures from teachers, but also questions and comments from other students.  I didn’t usually feel intellectual enough or informed enough to open my mouth and add to the conversation, mainly for fear of looking stupid.  Bottom line, my insecurities forced me to listen to all viewpoints, think about them, and then discuss with people I trusted.

     So, when I found myself sitting on my couch on September 29, 2020 awaiting the first debate between President Donald Trump and former VP Joe Biden, I had a feeling of what I could expect, hoping for better.  It couldn’t have been worse.  The 90 minutes or so that I wasted watching this embarrassment of a civic debate frustrated me about as much as I’ve ever been.  I authentically wanted to hear what both had to say, and I was denied that by both to different degrees.  Short of putting both candidates in sound proof bubbles, and turning on each of their microphones when it was their turn, Chris Wallace was powerless to control this adolescence. 

  

     It feels like we’re witnessing more and more of this in everyday life.  People in the store, at family gatherings, at work, and just about anywhere else have lost the ability to hold actual conversations.  We don’t listen to each other as much as we just wait for the other person to pause so we can jump in with what is clearly a much better opinion or fact.  Many have discovered the oratory abilities of politicians to their liking, where they breathlessly cram as many words and thoughts into the little time that you have to discuss. Social media has become a bunch of one way conversations on steroids.  And it’s to our detriment.

     As an example, I invited a local politician to speak with my AP Government class this year, to be followed by a Q and A.  The students came prepared with questions.  This person knew we had about 75 minutes, and proceeded to take up the first 65 talking about themselves.  This left about ten to fifteen minutes, which allowed for maybe three questions, that led to long, meandering answers.  I was dispirited, and I felt like it was done intentionally to avoid the students’ questions.  In contrast, Congressman Jim McGovern also visited, and used almost the entire time to take questions, and gave honest answers.  We all appreciated it, and we learned about him, his ideas, and his ideologies, for good or bad.

     In the Tao-te Ching, Lao-tzu is quoted as saying, “Those who know don’t talk.  Those who talk don’t know.”  Kind of extreme, but the spirit is applicable.  It is true that we are better people when all viewpoints are authentically heard and processed, and it requires an honest attempt at understanding the other side, not a cursory hearing.  It can be uncomfortable, and may require admitting to being wrong, but it is often where some form of truth lies.

     There is historical evidence of this.  George Washington, the first president, and thus creating the first Cabinet, could have stuffed it with yes-men.  Instead he offered the job of Secretary of State to one of his harshest critics, Thomas Jefferson, knowing full well it would lead to many headaches as Jefferson and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, both of whom shared a mutual hatred, battled nearly every day.  Jefferson stayed on the job for nearly three years, and did some remarkable work, including the negotiation that led to the creation of  Washington, D.C.

      A better example is probably Abaraham Lincoln.  After losing the Illinois Senate election to Stephen Douglass, Lincoln ran for President of the United States.  He was young, and somewhat of a political novice. He was also taking on some political heavy weights in the Republican primary like William H. Seward (a strong front runner), Salmon Chase, and Edward Bates.  Each of them tore into Lincoln throughout the primary season, to no avail.  Lincoln won.  Lincoln then, in maybe one of the most presidential moves ever, offered seats in his Cabinet to all of them.  They were stunned, and Lincoln was better for it.  So was the country, as Seward made an outstanding Secretary of State, Chase was made the Treasury Secretary, and Bates the Attorney General.  These men helped guide the U.S. through the Civil War.  (Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Pulitzer Prize winning book, Team of Rivals, is a must read)

     Great men like Washington and Lincoln welcomed push back.  They wanted to hear the arguments they disagreed with.  Boy, are we a long way from that.

     Cancel culture is now in our lexicon, and it is not helping us.  Colleges and universities are, in essence, forced to cancel guest speakers due to pressure from students.  School committee meetings devolve into chaos as people shout over those trying to speak.  Relatives shout down each other at Thanksgiving.  And, Presidential debates start showing the rest of the world that maybe our civic experiment is starting to erode.  We should not keep people from speaking.  I should be able to hear them if I choose.  More importantly, I want to know who they are, and what better way to know someone other than listening to them for a period of time.  Maya Angelou said, “When someone tries to show you who they are, believe them the first time.”  What if we never get that chance?  Listening does not imply agreement.

     Let me be clear, I think people have the right to react to what is being said.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the door to large amounts of money influencing our politics by small groups of people, usually businesses trying to sell something.  The common man can fight back by not buying what they are selling.  If you don’t agree with a comedian’s take on gay marriage, don’t buy tickets to their show.  If Disney’s policies piss you off, don’t go.  If you think Chick-fil-A is racist, don’t buy their sandwiches.  But each should be allowed to voice their opinions, as the First Amendment allows everyone to do.  Each will also need to decide if it is in their financial interests to continue voicing their opinions publicly, or keep them more private.

      If I could give a homework assignment to this country, it would be a book report.  Everyone would have to pick a book that had a concept they found abhorrent, and force their way through it.  The book doesn’t care if you yell at it.  It’s not going to yell back.  It’s just going to wait until you clear your head and try again.  If/when you finish, you can still hate it, but at least you tried.  And if you REALLY, TRULY took in the words as they were meant to be read or heard, you may just find yourself questioning your own beliefs.  That leads to honesty.  And we need that more than anything right now.