Why do all of our political conversations seemingly boil down to one or two talking points? Why can’t these conversations get off the ground? I don’t claim to have the answer, but here’s a start.
Just like our two-party system, there is no middle ground when it comes to our political beliefs. At the end of the day, we all hold certain beliefs that shape the way we view the world. Everyone has a unique sense of what is right and what is wrong. We are at the point in our national political discourse that there is such a certainty of ‘rightness’ on both sides that the other side must be equally wrong. For example: the pro-life vs. pro choice debate. It’s one of the most contentious issues in modern politics. Members of each side of the argument thinks it’s abhorrent that anyone could think differently than them.
“The sanctity of life must be protected at all cost.”
“How dare you tell me what to do with my body?”
When you can’t come up with a single reason to consider the other sides’ viewpoint, how will we ever have nuanced political discussions? The nature of the abortion debate allows for little to no nuance. Does a fertilized egg have the right to life or does a mother have the right to terminate her own pregnancy?
Yes or no?
You fall one way or the other. The only nuance that may come in to play would be when considering cases of rape or the time at which the embryo/fetus is aborted. Excluding those cases, it really does come down to one belief.
I chose the abortion debate because there truly seems to be no middle ground. But if you look deep enough, you’ll find it. The middle ground is where you’ll find people who dissagree with you but mind their own business. Should I expect a 75 year old priest to be ok with abortions? Maybe not. But you know what I should expect? I should expect that priest to respect the individual’s right to choose. To choose something that impacts no one other than herself. Do I think it’s a form of child abuse to teach children that the world is 5,000 years old and that human beings walked with dinosaurs? Maybe I do. But I think parents have a right to teach their kids however they see fit. It’s none of my business. It’s my business when those fairy tales want to get into the public school curriculum but that’s a different story.
So what about the other, less contentious debates? Why don’t those get anywhere? Take campaign finance reform for example. Should corporations be allowed to give millions of dollars to political campaigns or should there be a limit? While there are certainly strong viewpoints on either side, there is room for debate. Yet, the conversations rarely get past the basic talking points.
“Corporations are making a mockery of our democracy!”
“I thought this was a free market? People have a right to do whatever they want with their money!”
Both fair points of view but good luck getting either side to admit to that. To admit any credibility of the opposite viewpoint would be seen as undermining your entire argument. But therein lies the problem. Any admittance of nuance is seen as weakening one’s argument.
It’s ok that these competing ideas wrestle around in your head. They both have legitimate cases and you don’t always have to choose one or the other. You may ultimately come down on one side of the coin but recognizing the validity of the other side is crucial if we are to have any semblance of respect when it comes to our national political discourse.
Admitting that you see where someone is coming from is conversation 101 yet it’s a lost art in today’s politics. If you want to have constructive dialogue with someone, they need to know that you’re hearing them and that you’re really trying to see where they’re coming from. Same goes for our political discourse. No matter how much it pains you to say it, it wouldn’t kill you to say, “you know what Priest, I can see where you’re coming from. Life is a gift. It’s something no one should take lightly. I disagree with your stance, but I empathize with your viewpoint.” Same goes for the Priest. “You know what Jessica, I can see where you’re coming from. It’s your body. Your decision has nothing to do with me. I disagree with your stance, but I empathize with your viewpoint.
I know what you’re thinking, it’s inredibly naive to think that all of our political discussions would be so measured and level-headed. Yet, admitting that there’s room for nuance is the first step towards getting out of the hamster wheel that is our political discourse. It’s the equivalent of saying, “hey, nice shirt, Tim!” when in reality, you hate Tim’s shirt. You think it’s one of the ugliest shirts you’ve ever seen. But you’ll never tell that to Tim. Why? Because Tim gets REALLY mad when people don’t like his shirt. (Did this metaphor go too far? Maybe it went to far…) Point is, why ruffle some feathers when you can tell a little white lie for the sake of communion?
Deconstructed Politics 