Example: Unity in Real Life

I posted something on Facebook about not raising taxes on the top wage earners, and I got called a Christian hypocrite from a self-described flaming liberal.  He said, "Christians are directed (in the Bible) to pay their taxes."  You can see how screwed up this conversation was starting off to be, as it was plain to see that I never said Christians should not pay taxes; nor did I say anything about Christians.  This was an attack on my credibility in response to the taxation topic at hand.  It's how political conversations so often get under way: emotionally and irrationally. 

But it is also the start of something beautiful.  After we exchanged a few posts and a message or two, we found the following points of unity:

- The tax system should be fair. (Incidentally, it came out that we both like the idea of a flat tax.)

- Taxes on products and services are bad for business.  Retailers should be less burdened, not more burdened by taxation.

- The government wastes our tax dollars in many ways that could be easily remedied.  This liberal friend, who worked for the Welfare Department, said that there is extraordinary waste in how the government distributes food stamps.  He even offered common sense ways to fix the problem.

Think about how significant this is.  The way the conversation started, it would have seemed that there was no way on God’s green earth that we could have found common ground on the topic of taxation.  But we did.  And I bet there is A LOT more unity where that came from. 

One of the reasons the conversation did not get derailed was because I made it a point to tell him I was very interested in finding points on which we agree, and that I was looking for a productive, civilized discussion.  That quite effectively reset the tone of our dialogue.

It is very possible for we, the people, to do what our political representatives cannot - unite.   But I remind you that our representatives are just that: representatives.  I don’t think we should expect much unity in Washington if it is not abundant in the American population.  Thus, we desperately need the productive political conversation.

VI. Step One (drum roll, please)

Productive Political Discussion:  a conversation in which each participant acquires a deeper understanding of the other's point of view, and also of his own.  As the conversation becomes productive, we begin to see the points at which our value systems converge, and division yields to unity as it must.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Power without responsibility is a threat to our nation.  This notion applies to we, the people, as much as anyone.  With our power to vote comes real responsibility.  I believe the responsibility is two-fold:  First, we have the responsibility to know what it is that we each value.  Second, we have the responsibility to know whether key pieces of legislation actually reflect those values. 

The productive political discussion must therefore put many of our personal values squarely on the table.  While the conversation may seem to begin as "my values versus yours", when it is executed properly it will also identify the values that are ours.

STEPS OF THE PRODUCTIVE POLITICAL DISCUSSION

STEP 1.  Say what you value. 

How freaking easy is that?  Ok, there’s a little more to it: When you say what you value, it needs to be in the context of a problem with which society is grappling (healthcare, for instance).  You need to express what you value in terms of an “attribute” you want to see in the legislation. 

Now, what’s an attribute?  It’s just an inherent characteristic you want the legislation to possess in order for that legislation to be consistent with what you value.  Remember, it’s not our job to actually write the laws.  It’s our job to ensure they reflect what we value - to examine legislation for its alignment with our individual moral code. 

For example, you might say, “Any federal legislation on healthcare should be non-coercive.”  The attribute is “non-coercive”. 

Here are a few more examples of things that would be legislative attributes. The [specified law] should: 

-preserve choice

-be non-coercive

-lower taxes

-foster competition

It can be anything you value in the context of the law being discussed.  Those listed above are the core attributes that I personally require because they are consistent with some of my core values.  I try to bring these up in conversation so that the other person has something to react to.  Their reaction is the first step in getting their values on the table.  For example, a couple people I've talked with reacted strongly to the "lower taxes" attribute.  Now, they didn't say, "Well, Craig, I actually would prefer to see taxes go up."  No, it's more like, "What!? LOWER taxes?? Are you SERIOUS?  So those greedy Wall Street bastards will NEVER have to pay their fair share!?!?"  Or something like that.  But that's how it goes, and the fact is that it's progress in that we've each put values on the table.  I value tax reductions and they value tax increases of some type.  While it doesn't yet represent a united front, it is absolutely progress. Finding values that are in conflict happens... a lot... and it brings us one step closer to realizing our objective, which is to identify those values that we share. 

TIP #1: Keep the conversation focused on legislation, not politicians or parties.  The legislation is all that matters.  It doesn't matter how great or terrible the person in office might be.  The only thing that matters to any of us is the legislation that will govern our lives.

V. Rationalizations & Grinding Gears

Productive Political Discussion:  a conversation in which each participant acquires a deeper understanding of the other's point of view, and also of his own.  As the conversation becomes productive, we begin to see the points at which our value systems converge, and division yields to unity as it must.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurdle #3:  We Rationalize.

We take a stance on a political issue not necessarily because we have all the facts, but because it seems right to us.  When facts are presented, we tend to accept those that confirm our position, and reject those that don’t – this is known as confirmation bias.   And when we present our opinion, we tend to offer only those facts that support it; in research circles, such a bias is sometimes referred to as “data mining”. 

What’s more, we all know that we rationalize.  So when our opposition is making their case, we assume they are data mining.  That, in turn, makes it easier for us to discount any facts that may damage our own position, which is just our way of rationalizing our confirmation bias.  We rationalize our rationalizations.

Hurdle #4:  It Ain’t Casual

Finally, when the topic of politics comes up, it’s usually during casual conversation. But the topic is anything but casual. In the casual context, political discourse can appear very misplaced if one is not prepared to deal with it.  Because a political conversation is really a matter of my values versus yours, it’s easy to see how things can go quickly awry when our minds are forced to grind out of a casual gear into a serious one. 

This list of four hurdles is by no means exhaustive.  But it should help make you aware of how the human mind can so easily pull the rug out from under a political discussion.  It might further make you realize how important it is to consciously build the skills necessary to contend with these hurdles that, I can assure you, will not disappear.

IV. Bad Benchmarks

Productive Political Discussion:  a conversation in which each participant acquires a deeper understanding of the other's point of view, and also of his own.  As the conversation becomes productive, we begin to see the points at which our value systems converge, and division yields to unity as it must.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hurdle #2:  Bad Benchmarks.

On the table before you are two platters.  Piled upon one is a steamy heap of fecal matter, on the other a lump of coal.  If I tell you that the coal is a tasty morsel compared to the poo pile, will I have compelled you to eat the coal?  I trust we all agree that feces are an unacceptably low standard for edible things.  Comparing something to a low standard never makes a compelling case. 

When our basis for comparison is something that anyone in the discussion believes represents a low standard, the comparison loses its punch.

So my question to you is this:  Do you think that your political opposition is the benchmark for intelligent leadership?  You most probably don't.  Nevertheless, political discussions generally involve comparisons of one party to another, or one politician to another, with the intent of making a point.  But such comparisons are futile.  They simply lack impact because the person on the other side of the discussion is not going to recognize your candidate or your party as the benchmark for intelligent leadership.  Nor should they.

No politician or party is the benchmark for intelligent leadership. But rather, every politician, along with her party, should be held to some other benchmark that we all agree represents the highest standard.  That mutually agreed upon standard reveals itself as we identify those points at which our value systems converge.  Those points of convergence - our united front - represent the highest standard; our united front IS the benchmark.

III. Dog v. Cat

Productive Political Discussion:  a conversation in which each participant acquires a deeper understanding of the other's point of view, and also of his own.  As the conversation becomes productive, we begin to see the points at which our value systems converge, and division yields to unity as it must.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are several surmountable hurdles to a productive political discussion.  Keep in mind that these are not problems that need to be “fixed”.  We can easily accommodate them with the right methodology.

Hurdle #1: Dog v. Cat.

I have asked many people why they like President Obama.  A surprising number responded with what amounted to a list of things they didn't like about Bush.  In other words, their perception of why Obama is good was justified, at least in part, by the absence of attributes possessed by Bush.  It’s like asking a dog lover why she loves canines and getting a response such as, “I love dogs because cats hiss, cats need a stinky litter box in the house, cats hack up nasty fur balls…”

But the question was directly seeking a list of canine attributes.  The reason one likes dogs, after all, has to do with the dog, itself, and not the possibility that cats may have unattractive qualities (no offense to feline aficionados).  To like dogs on the basis that they are not cats implies that one could have equal appreciation for a dung beetle, which is also not a cat. 

Obama’s campaign managers were clearly aware of this phenomenon.  After all, he won the election based on “change”; that is, based largely on the prospect being not Bush. 

Sometimes I find myself pondering the 2012 election and thinking "anyone but Obama" will be better.  But that's simply flawed, dog v. cat, reasoning.  Anytime we deem one thing to be desirable solely because it does not possess the attributes of that which we deem undesirable, we have fallen victim to the Dog v. Cat phenomenon. 

Dog v. Cat is an impediment to the productive political conversation because it can get our brains wrapped up in the notion of change without recognizing that change and improvement are two different things.  When Bush was in office, for example, we did not need change, which is what we got.  We needed improvement. 

II. The Nature of The Beast

Productive Political Discussion:  a conversation in which each participant acquires a deeper understanding of the other's point of view, and also of his own.  As the conversation becomes productive, we begin to see the points at which our value systems converge, and division yields to unity as it must.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason political discourse is so challenging is simple: Our positions on political issues are directly connected to our own value systems – our individual codes of right and wrong.  Consider life versus choice, or who can and can't legally marry, or capital punishment.  It’s no surprise that people on either side of a political discussion often feel like the other person’s sense of morality is being imposed on them.  In fact, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Political discourse invariably pits one person’s subjective morality against that of another.  That's just the nature of the beast, and it seems to present a dilemma.  After all, conventional wisdom has it that a productive discussion is an objective discussion – one in which progress comes from an exchange of facts and data, not opinions and feelings.  However, the linkage between our moral sense and our political opinion is so strong that it makes objectivity quite difficult in a political conversation. 

Any mechanism that permits a productive discussion must therefore defy conventional wisdom.  In fact, the solution to the problem turns conventional wisdom on its head.

But let’s be reminded of the problem: The problem is that we want high levels of productivity to come from a conversation in which one person’s sense of morality faces off against another person’s sense of morality.  A high hurdle, it would seem.  Further, none of us has any intention of disconnecting the linkage between our moral code and our stance on a political issue.  Nor, as you will see later, do we need to.

I. Introduction

Two people hover over a man in cardiac arrest.  Divided about how to administer the CPR, they squabble as the victim fades away.  Like these two “helpers”, the people of our nation are divided politically.  As our Republic fades way, I acknowledge what makes this tragedy so Shakespearean: when it comes to what should be legislated in Washington, I believe the overwhelming majority of us are actually in agreement.  Yet, we remain divided at great cost. 

Experience has shown me that the source of our political division is not so much ideology, but rather methodology; it’s not what we think, but how we communicate those thoughts to each other that undermines our ability to foster unity.  What we need are the skills to have productive political conversations. 

A "productive political discussion" is a conversation in which all parties involved acquire a much deeper understanding of their opposition’s point of view, and also of their own.  As the conversation becomes productive, we begin to see the points at which our value systems converge, and division yields to unity as it must.

My discovery of how to have a productive political discussion was very Thomas Edison-esque: I first succeeded in finding ten-thousand ways that would not work (just ask some of my friends). Through countless trials and copious errors, I am left with something I think just might be of value to you.

To my friends at all points on the political spectrum, this blog serves to outline the method of communication that enables a productive political discussion, whereby we can readily find those points at which our individual value systems converge.  These points of moral convergence establish, indeed define, our United Front – the genesis of our strength and of our solidarity. When our nation’s laws reflect this, it will be to the satisfaction of all, both the majority and the minority.  Please follow my blog to find out how and why.