Part Two
The prelude in my previous post may seem as though I
am asking how Trump’s critics can both criticize him and act with respect
towards him. That is a good question and we may come back to it, but I was more
stimulated by the criticism of George Will from an unnamed commenter on Facebook.
What disturbs me in that exchange is the idea of
treating Will as “an other”. “Othering” may be one of the more annoying
neologisms of the 21st century; it is also a useful concept. The “other”
in this case becomes someone who is unforgivable and whom I cannot reconcile
with.
Francis Schaeffer had a term for political and
religious opponents that he could work with on a common agenda. I don’t
remember the term and if someone can help me remember, I would be grateful. I
will use the term “collaborator”: one whom we work with in a specific
situation. Based on the Facebook comment I referenced, that critic is not ready
to work with George Will to oppose Trump because Will has (to her) an
objectionable view of poor people – “Will holds some dark views.”
The issue of poverty deserves more consideration
than we usually give it. Poverty is not just individual; it is also systemic
and requires systemic action and systemic change. Poverty is also not just
systemic; it is also personal and requires personal action and personal change.
Someone like George Floyd knew that and was working with young men in Houston
and Minneapolis, helping them to make choices that could lead to a better life.
To put it another way: conservatives and liberals
both have something worth contributing to a discussion of poverty. George Will
may overstate the conservative case, but he has something to contribute.
Progressives may overstate the liberal case, but they have something to
contribute. What both need is a commitment to end poverty and a desire to walk with
poor people – as equal human beings, changing structures and changing personal
choices and actions.
A Conclusion
I will leave this discussion alone for now; I know
too little to say more usefully. Rather I return to the point of this post: By “othering”
Will, his critic lost an opportunity to join forces. More seriously, othering
is a kind of depersonalizing. I do not think his critic went that far, but depersonalizing
one’s opponent is a basic staple of political conversation today in North
America.
Some liberals see conservatives as evil or stupid,
almost less than human – the ultimate action of othering. Some conservatives
see liberals-progressives as evil and scheming – again. The ultimate action of
othering. Thus, my question in my last post: How do I respect people with whom
I disagree?
It is too easy to simply avoid disagreeing. We must
speak for truth and against error, for good and against evil. In the case of
the death of George Floyd, prompting this reflection, we must speak out against
and act against casual violence against black people. (The casual way that the
officer knelt on Floyd’s neck offended sensibilities almost more than a violent
attack would have.) So, we may disagree – and should not avoid stating what we believe
to be true.
If I believe this, then those who think that police
violence is not the problem depicted in the protests should also be part of the
conversation. It seems to me that counter-protests attract radicals and are not
a useful way to bring disparate views together. Rather, we must learn to speak
respectfully with each other, even when we disagree most strongly.
Further, we cannot speak respectfully with each
other if we do not genuinely respect each other. In the case of George Will, I
do not agree with many of his viewpoints, but he has clearly thought carefully
about what he says and tested his ideas with some rigour. It is not a surprise
to learn that he is trained in political philosophy. I can respect him and
listen to him. Similarly, the commenter who criticized him also clearly has thought
carefully about her positions. I can respect her and listen to her.
To speak and listen to each other clearly and
respectfully is a first step. But what happens when the other is intent only on
depersonalizing his/her opponents. I need to reflect more on that question in
part three.
No comments:
Post a Comment