Reaching Across the Divide

Building Bridges not Barriers

In a discussion with a group interested in reaching across the political divide, I questioned, "How do you reach somebody who refuses to participate."

Recently, at Thanksgiving dinner, we were going around the table sharing things we're thankful for. Most of us talked about our family, pets and friends. One person decided to insert politics despite and agreement not to talk about partisan politics at the gathering. He boldly stated, "I'm thankful we have someone as president who is making America great again." The table went stone silent until his wife reminded him forcefully, "No politics!"  

Prior to that, talk around the table had been amicable with broad ranging discussions on a variety of topics including the environment, presidents past and present, food, movies and work. Fortunately, order was restored, and friendship prevailed despite obvious political differences.

I was reminded of an anonymous quote I ran across 30 years ago, "There's my informed and intelligent opinion, and anybody who disagrees is a brain dead zealot."

And then today, I saw this...

There needs to be a change. That change needs to come from us, because it's not likely to come from the top. There are wise words to follow from people much smarter than I.


You cannot reap what you have not sown. How are we going to reap love in our community if we only sow hate?
- Saint Óscar Romero


Now, this country is going to be transformed. It will not be transformed by an act of God, but by all of us, by you and me. I don’t believe any longer that we can afford to say that it is entirely out of our hands. We made the world we’re living in and we have to make it over.
- James Baldwin

People on opposite sides are going to need to to start talking with each other. Maybe that means listening to each other first. There's a book I've been reading, "Soul Force." The authors, Reesheda Graham-Washington and Shawn Casselberry, offer seven pivot points toward courage, community, and change.

The pivot points are:

1. From Fear to Freedom
2. From Barriers to Bridge Building
3. From Self-Centeredness to Solidarity
4. From Hurt to Hope
5. From Consuming to Creating
6. From Charity to Change
7. From Maintenance to Moving 

To me, it looks like the antidote to everything the Trumpians seem to stand for, but by saying this am falling into the same trap?

Be Heard - Vote

As I read, I move from moments of hopefulness to, "Oh, what's the use." I'm reminded of some of the great civil movements. It is not hopeless. Martin Luther King, Jr. responded to the idea that legislation could not be used to change hearts.  

"It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless.
It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also.
So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government."

The time is right to listen, find common ground, and build coalitions that will bring about change. Maybe part of resisting is to resist the forces that would divide us. 

Civil Discourse in the Age of Hostility

It Won't Be Easy

A recent study by Pew Research suggests there's an increasing partisan divide in this country. There's evidence of divisions within Republicans and Democrats not just between Republicans and Democrats. The Republican coalition is divided by immigration, global economic engagement, acceptance of homosexuality. The four groups in the Democratic coalition differ on a number of issues: While they all strongly support the social safety net, the Democratic-leaning groups are divided on government regulation of business, and government performance more generally. And like the GOP coalition, they disagree on U.S. global involvement.

Throw into this mix the partisan politics that result in a do nothing congress and the divisive nature of presidential politics and you have people who more are willing to call each other names than to look for commonalities to solve problems. According to the report the extremists on both sides are the most likely to be politically active and, therefore, have the most influence. The Pew Study says, "The power of partisanship is reflected in attitudes about Donald Trump. In the survey, conducted in June, Trump’s job ratings are more deeply polarized along partisan lines than those of any president in more than 60 years."

I think it's explained by an anonymous source as, "There's my enlightened point of view...everybody else is a brain dead zealot." There's not a whole lot of room for conversation after that, nor was anybody invited to interject anything constructive. Angry tweets laced with name calling do not lend themselves to mutually agreeable outcomes.

The Answer

Civil discourse is engagement in discourse intended to enhance understanding. ... David Gergen describes civil discourse as "the language of dispassionate objectivity", and suggests that it requires respect of the other participants, such as the reader.

Our local paper (yes, I still read the paper), until recently, included commentary on a daily basis with columnists from the left and right. It was something I looked forward to. I enjoyed the multiple viewpoints on issues facing all of us. These were thoughtful and well-considered viewpoints which pretty much eliminates people who think the earth is flat. I think the reasoned and thoughtful discussion is important to gain a better perspective of what the other side is offering. If we just yell at each other, nothing will get accomplished.

Conservative Columnist David Brooks of the New York Times recently wrote a column about dealing with fanaticism. Brooks mentions four incidents within the past two weeks. The first was at a Nationals game. A pro Trump supporter went into a 10 minute, profanity laced tirade directed at Brooks, his wife and his son.Then he watched a debate among students about whether extremists should be allowed on campus. In Spain Brooks is told by leaders in Madrid that there was no way to have constructive discussions with separatists. Finally, Brooks was with pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit activists trying to have a civil conversation with one another. The conclusion he reaches is biblical. Love your enemy.

Brooks suggests you listen and engage. Paraphrase what is being said to show you're interested instead of attacking back. "Finally, it’s best to greet fanaticism with love for the sake of the country. As Stephen L. Carter points out in his 1998 book, Civility, the best abolitionists restrained their natural hatred of slaveholders because they thought the reform of manners and the abolition of slavery were part of the same cause — to restore the dignity of every human being."

Civility, Carter writes, “is the sum of the many sacrifices we are called to make for the sake of living together.”

If you're looking for the biblical passage about loving your enemy, here are two... Luke 6:27-36  and  Matthew 5:43-48. 

Civility is not not saying negative or harsh things. It is not the absence of critical analysis. It is the manner in which we are sharing this territorial freedom of political discussion. If our discourse is yelled and screamed and interrupted and patronized, that's uncivil. -Richard Dreyfuss
.

Valuing Civil Discourse

Core Values

Have you noticed how politics has devolved? There seems to be very little that is rationally discussed. Discussions on cable news have become filled with vitriol, shouting and hate. The anger and vitriol of cable news is parroted by millions. Any rational debate is lost in the name calling. As a result politics is all about personal attack. According to Pew Research, political polarization is affecting daily life, and the results are negative. Antipathy is causing gridlock in Washington and in many states. People from both parties view the other party as a threat to the nation's well-being. 27% of Democrats see the Republicans as a threat to the nation's well-being. 36% of Republicans see Democrats as a threat to the nation's well-being. The appetite for bipartisan solutions is diminished.

Most Americans are not uniformly conservative or liberal. They believe their representatives should meet halfway to resolve contentious issues. Yet, the majority in the middle remains on the edges of the political playing field. But, as Pew points out, those joining the political extremes are growing in numbers.

This antipathy does not apply to Public Radio's core audience.
Public Radio did some research to discover its Core Values of Public Radio. Those values were published by the Public Radio Program Directors Association. The goal was to find the values that made the top programs on public radio so appealing to its audience. The ultimate goal was to apply those values to local programming. They are: 

Qualities of the Mind and Intellect

Love of lifelong learning

Substance

Curiosity

Credibility

Accuracy

Honesty

Respect for the listener

Purpose

Qualities of the Heart and Spirit

Humor

Idealism

Inspired about public life and culture

Belief in civility and civil discourse

Generosity

Qualities of Craft

A uniquely human voice

Pacing that's appropriate to the substance of the content

Attention to the smallest details of music, sound, language

Since I share many of those values, I take them to heart. Civil Discourse is one of the most important values when it comes to making decisions during elections. Without it, people are focusing on all the wrong issues. You don't believe me? Just watch.

Hilary Stops at Chipotle

It is revealing when the journalist in the middle tries to insert some real analysis into the discussion, the other members of the panel seem stunned...just for a second...then go back to their snide comments. I come from a public broadcasting background. We focussed our efforts on the Core Values of Public Radio in our reporting and local programming. Something we learned is it may not be impossible to be completely objective as a reporter. It is not impossible to be fair. Public Radio is held to a higher standard by its audience. Local programming needs mirror national programming by reflecting those values.

Civil Discourse and Politics

Civil Discourse is a core value of the public radio audience. It seems civil discourse is almost non-existent in 2012. Tracy Powell writes for Poynter.org that the problem is being made worse because local news outlets are not reporting on the toxic mix of money, politics and media.

"A Free Press report released this week says that “perhaps the most important story of the 2012 presidential election is the toxic mix of money, politics and media that is shaping so much of the discourse in the months before the general election. Yet that’s not a story you’ll find on the local news.”      Toxic Mix 

Powell suggest that local news stations are not reporting on this mix because of the money involved. Local TV is making a lot of money accepting misleading advertising from candidates and Super PACs. Because of this voters are being denied real coverage about the dangers and divisiveness of this type of campaigning.

How the phantom of ‘socialized medicine’ came to be

Related to this is Trudy Lieberman's article for the Columbia Journalism Review about Jill Lepore's "The Lie Factory." Lepore's New Yorker article describes the work of Campaigns, Inc. (NPR had a feature on Campaigns Inc. and their founders of the company Whitaker and Baxter, Political Consulting And The 'Lie Factory) Whitaker and Baxter may not have invented the negative (dirty) political campaign but, they refined it into an art form. They invented political consulting. Their methods are slash-and-burn, repeat-the-lies, cutthroat campaigning. Keep it simple. If you explain something, you've lost the advantage. Lieberman reexamines how Campaigns, Inc. scuttled Harry Truman's plan for health insurance. When introduced by Truman, the plan had overwhelming public support. with the backing of $1million dollars from the AMA, Campaigns, Inc turned the public against the plan.

This type of campaigning is exacerbating the us vs. them mentality. That point was brought home to me in a class about Parables. The focus of the study is John Dominic Crossan's, "The Power of Parable."
There are four types. They are riddle parable, example parables, challenge parables and attack parables.
Whitaker and Baxter used attack parables. They are angry and aggressively hostile. They are meant to divide and marginalize opponents. It is deliberate in squelching civil discourse. The leader of the class pointed out that attack parables can provoke violence. Violence runs through three stages.

• Ideological violence is thinking that persons, groups and nations are inhuman, subhuman or, seriously lacking in humanity (sound familiar?).
• Rhetorical violence is speaking on that presumption by dehumanizing those "others" with rude names, crude caricatures, and derogatory stereotypes.
• Physical violence (sometime lethal) is acting on those presuppositions either by illegal attack or, if in a potion of power, by official, legal political action.

Lieberman points out that the simplicity of the lie makes it difficult to combat. Powell points out that is why the political ads need to be consistently questioned by journalists. Considering the hundreds of ads running today...covering the issue once is not going to cover it.

I've been working on two projects about civics and civil discourse. A couple of weeks ago the issue of politics was broached during a civics discussion on the Real Life Survival Guide. There was real hesitancy in the room to discuss politics. It has become increasingly difficult to rationally discuss the issues because of the negative examples around us. I've also been working with the Civil Conversations Project from APM's On Being. Their goal is to bring people with differing views together of a rational discussion around issues that are dividing us.