Part Four: Some Applications

I continue to ask myself, how can I interact with those whose positions are radically different from my own, as well as those with whom I disagree mildly, and do so in a respectful way. Here are three basic steps in point form. All of this is incredibly elementary; anyone who has worked seriously with conflict management would find my ruminations so basic as to be laughable.

But we are in a time when no one is laughing. Instead, we are mocking and taunting and trying to other our opponents – political or otherwise – out of the public square altogether. With that situation in mind, I offer these beginning steps, not exhaustive, but indicative of the kind of respectful communication we need.

1.   Assume that the other person has something worthwhile to say. Even if he/she is badly wrong overall, assume that the person you are speaking with is reasonably intelligent and has seen or heard some need that their position expresses. Consider the issue of poverty. 
            Some conservatives tend to assume that liberals or progressives are blind about the realities of life. Begin by listening to the progressive you know and ask why they are so passionate about any given position. As one young progressive burst out in my presence, “I hate poverty!” She had seen enough of what poverty does to children to hate it – rightfully so. One cannot dismiss that passion lightly without losing a Christian awareness of the justice of God.

Some liberals tend to assume that conservatives care only about their pocketbook. Begin by listening to the conservative you know and find out what really moves them. You may find (as I have) that they also care about the poor and that they are willing to mentor those who find themselves trapped in poverty. They see more value in the personal approach than in dealing with structures.

            Both positions have merit. Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty did not work. I spent a summer in the projects of San Francisco and saw the way that personal worldviews trap people even when the government gives them “a hand up”. I am not an economist or a political scientist. I do not know the precise shape that dealing with poverty should take. But I am reasonably sure that action requires personal involvement à la conservatism and structural change à la a liberal perspective. We do better to hear each other than to destroy each other.

2.      Assume that the other person is not wrong about everything. This is the converse of number one. C.S. Lewis has observed that to be wrong in every respect would take more than normal creativity. He is right. But often in today’s polarized conversations both sides speak as thought the other side has no contribution to make. Liberals/conservatives are always wrong!

Donald Trump did not originate this destructive attitude, but he has perfected it in his drive in the White House to undo anything that President Obama did. It seems sometimes as though his policy is driven by the principle, “If Obama said or did it, I am against it.” Such an approach makes for a reactive and destructive administration.

Progressives can be just as destructive in their approach. When Franklin Graham’s Samaritan Purse showed up to help fight the pandemic in New York City, many progressives tried to have SP excluded from the work to care for those afflicted with the coronavirus. Instead of banding together in a common cause, they made it clear that Graham was not an acceptable human being and could not share the city’s space with them.

To both sides I say: Assume that your opponent is sometimes right. Trump is not clever enough to be wrong about everything. For all that he was a university professor type of President, neither is Obama clever enough to be wrong about everything. Humanize the other! Recognize God’s image in the person across from you. Assume they are sometimes right, because they are!

3.      Don’t assume you know the other person’s motivations. I read somewhere that a Democratic Senator from Montana gave that advice to his successor, crediting it with helping him to work successfully as a Blue Senator in a Red State. I would amend it to add the word “meaning”: Don’t assume you know the other person’s motivations or meaning – especially after only one statement.

I read many comments in social media that are brilliant in the acerbic biting wit. The contain enough acid to destroy any good will between people, but they do not contribute to understanding. Instead, we can ask questions for clarification: “Did you mean what I think you mean?”

Like the first two, this basic principle is not confined to one side or the other in any conversation. We assume sometimes that what we said is so clear that the other must have understood it. Unfortunately, what the other understood is not what we said. And vice versa. This point is a basic communication principle that I have heard given in marriage counselling. It is worth using more broadly than just with one’s spouse.

Such steps will not fix our problems, but they may help create a climate in which we can move towards constructive action. I think of the national conversation in the USA and in Canada following the killing of George Floyd on the streets of Minneapolis.

Some people are convinced that anyone who does not embrace Black Lives Matter are racists. If such people are your friends, take time to listen to them; ask what they mean; probe deeper to be sure you do understand; don’t assume they are racists; treat them with respect. You can state your own position clearly, while listening to their position respectfully. There is a reasonable possibility that you may find they were more right than you thought and that you agree with each other more than you expected.

Some people are convinced that anyone who does embrace BLM are socialists (at the least) and more likely communists, bent on destroying American and Canadian society. If such people, who do embrace BLM, are your friends, ask what they mean; probe deeper to be sure you do understand; don’t assume they are racists; treat them with respect. You can state your own position clearly, while listening to their position respectfully. There is a reasonable possibility that you may find they were more right than you thought and that you agree with each other more than you expected.

A closing thought: This approach requires an open and vulnerable spirit. Not everyone will accept such engagement. Some people will flame you. We dare not attack back. This approach also means that we accept our ideas may change. Americans and Canadians have come to value the ability to not change one’s mind. I believe that such “strength” is a chimera, a fable, a failure of imagination. Instead, we are growing all of our lives until we die. Open and honest conversations help us stay alive. Refusing to change, ever, just means that we die before we die.