Recently I have been reading some good analysis of where we are and how to improve the civil landscape, those places where we meet our neighbors and try to create a healthy environment for our kids to learn and for all of to enjoy clean air and water.
There are plenty of sources for how division is created by
media, by rich people, by people trying to make a buck off other’s pain, so I’ll
keep that brief:
The formula for creating division is to speak loudly and
often about common values and claim to be a supporter of that high ground. Then
when the details are being worked on, claim that anyone who disagrees with you
does not support those values. The confusion then feeds on itself as the disagreement
gets the attention and working from the values get lost.
Common values can be found across philosophies and religions
but throughout history we have fought over who has the better religion and the best
philosophy. Sometimes that is peaceful discourse in an academic setting,
sometimes it’s all out genocide. Politicians speak in terms of coming together
as a nation and listening to those who are not being heard and rewarding
everyone for their contributions. When that is translated into complex
legislation, it can be hard to trace the proposed solutions back to those basic
values.
Personally, I don’t care for the political process*. There
is too much about personality and cheering for one side over another. I have my
favorite politicians, and I’ve been to live events. I quickly get tired of clapping
along and uncomfortable as the emotions rise. I have heard the secret to a good
political speech is to present some data, then tell a story or say something
that reflects an emotional response, then go back to data again. Lately I see
more purely emotional speaking.
My interest in finding common ground and looking for
candidates outside of the two major parties began a few decades ago when I noticed
that if I questioned a policy of one of those favored candidates, I would be
questioned. That is, my values, my foundational beliefs would be questioned.
This would happen when I was with groups of people that I agreed with on most
issues and policies.
The same experiences are laid out by Allie Beth Stuckey in
her book Toxic
Empathy. She has a podcast too, of course. Her book is a series of vignettes
about people speaking their truth about political issues and paying a price for
it. She uses the tough issues, like abortion and immigration to illustrate. It’s
sometimes hard to hear the pain she reports. She paints a picture of a world
where we can’t talk about the difficult choices people face without being told
that we aren’t tolerant enough or accepting enough or don’t believe in justice.
I don’t claim to have
all the answers to these difficult issues, but I know we need to find ways to
talk about them. A common value is free speech. But now we are dividing on that
issue. We are mired in a discussion of whether our votes count, meanwhile significant
legislation doesn’t get passed. It is common now for bills to be supported
almost entirely by one party. A President signs an executive action and when
the opposite party has the Presidency an opposing action is signed.
There is some hope when people I vehemently disagree
with on most issues still speak for common values that form the basis for my political
beliefs. Tucker Carlson spoke in the wake of rhetoric around the death of Charlie
Kirk.
“You hope that a year from now, the turmoil we’re seeing in the aftermath of his murder won’t be leveraged to bring hate speech laws to this country,” Carlson said. “If that does happen, there is never a more justified moment for civil disobedience, there never will be.” “If they can tell you what to say, they’re telling you what to think, then there is nothing they can’t do to you,” Carlson said. “They don’t consider you human, they don’t believe you have a soul. A human being with a soul, a free man, has the right to say what he believes.”
Charlie Kirk was also good with statements of basic values. I
don’t like interacting the way he did, but I think he was sincere in his belief
that we should find ways to have difficult conversations. He said,
“Free speech is not just saying what you want to say, but it is having to hear things you don’t want to hear.”
There is also a partial quote from Charlie about empathy.
This partial quote is along the lines of Allie’s book above, but the full context
switches to the term “compassion”. It is similar to how I would critique Allie’s
thesis,
“I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new-age term, and it does a lot of damage. I much prefer the word compassion, and I much prefer the word sympathy. Empathy is where you try to feel someone’s pain and sorrows as if they’re your own. Compassion allows for understanding.”
It’s unlikely that I would have come across all the above if
I was not exposing myself to people and sources that hold wildly opposing views
to my own. Searching for common ground is part of how people have resisted
tyranny and authoritarianism throughout history. It’s the same for communist,
socialist, or corporate tyranny.
A friend sent something to me that included this one item in a
larger plan for creating a movement that embraces the values of free speech,
caring for everyone, and working together. I added a note in parentheses to
clarify the context,
4. Build a coalition bigger than the base (that you are opposing). They are most powerful when their opponents are divided. Create common ground between groups that might not agree on everything but share a goal of protecting democracy, fairness, and stability.
That is from a much longer piece that comes from a
particular political view, so I’m not including it. My point is, common ground
is common, look for it.
* BTW, I’m not moderate. I don’t seek compromise just for
the sake of compromise. I find there are very few people who believe in and
adopt a complete platform of one of the two national parties. Those platforms
change every year at their conventions, so it would be difficult to change
along with them.
