busyThere are not many such venues. Where I live, the atmosphere is generally conservative. The local Green Party had, last summer when I visited their table at the fair, six members. In the whole county. And they were getting heckled by people walking past. In other areas with a more liberal bent, it is the conservatives who get picked on. Online, the prevailing attitude of any given blog or website tends to determine who picks on whom. I mostly avoid places like that; I'm interested in rational discussion of issues and principles and ideas, not name-calling. I am only marginally more tolerant of liberal rants than conservative rants.
Today
haikujaguar tipped me to this great article about political intolerance and tolerance, exploring how this plays out at Harvard. It's a good reminder that assumptions are trouble and differences of opinion don't have to end a friendship.This “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy ultimately benefits no one, liberal or conservative. By isolating ourselves from those with whose opinions we disagree, we lose the ability to defend our beliefs. For me, as for most of my Harvard compatriots, the long, probing, in-depth discussions I’d heard were one of the best parts of college have been limited to topics like Youtube and the weather. When it comes to politics, every discussion is just a group of people agreeing with each other. This applies to campus conservatives as well:. Those comfortable enough in their political affiliation to come out as Young Republicans interact only with other Young Republicans, in an alternate, parallel universe similarly devoid of dissenting viewpoints. Given time, this sort of environment produces things like the Men for Palin video. This is good for no one.
At about the same time, my partner Doug flagged this article for me, about Obama's speech in Egypt. I was particularly taken by this section:
Obama used similar language when speaking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at the G20 talks last April. "What I believe we began today," he said at a joint press conference afterward, "is a very constructive dialogue that allows us to work on issues of mutual interest." The two sides had differences, and Obama didn't paper over them; in fact, he raised some of them explicitly and at some length. But he said he wouldn't let them get in the way of issues—such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation, regional conflict, and international trade—in which the two nations had shared and vital interests.
This matches my approach to activism. I'll team up with whomever else supports a given issue that I support, while we're rallying around that issue. If we disagree on the next one, that's okay; I'll be working with a different batch of people then. I can get together with liberal friends who believe that health care is a right, not a privilege; and I can get together with conservative friends who believe that the right to bear arms must be protected. It isn't necessary to agree about everything or to agree all the time ... in order to make progress you just need to focus on one area where you agree with the people working to solve that issue. Because when you group and split and regroup and shuffle around, eventually you get to know most of the people who are trying to make the world a better place, one way or another, and you learn that you have more in common than you thought. That makes it easier to solve just about anything.
June 5 2009, 23:23:31 UTC 12 years ago
It seems to me there can be common ground in the pragmatic solutions that get worked out to things. When people are talking about their absolute ideal positions, they're often miles apart--but when it comes down to what can be agreed on in a law, or in a peace deal, or in a trade arrangement (or whatever), they can often reach compromises which may make the law, or peace deal, or trade arrangement not highly satisfactory, but something that works--for a while, anyway, until something better (or what one or the other side, or some new side thinks is better) comes along.
Hmm...
June 6 2009, 02:40:30 UTC 12 years ago
So for instance, loggers vs. environmentalists can turn into a nightmare because loggers forget that if they cut down all the trees, they'll still wind up without jobs, and environmentalists forget that hungry people tend to destroy forests. But it's possible to arrange things so that part of a forest is sustainably harvested, which leaves habitat for wildlife but also maintains jobs and produces more goods than clearcutting it once; or you can actually design a whole multi-tiered forest for human use that will produce a variety of products including lumber, mulch, mushrooms, nuts, hunting, and tourism -- also providing jobs, and better habitat than either monoculture or clearcut land.
One area where I think liberals and conservatives could agree is that if people can find ways to solve problems on a local or regional scale, then the government doesn't have to get involved. This leaves liberals happy with more money to spend elsewhere and conservatives happy with less government involvement. So then, we could look for ways to create a dense layering of small to medium support nets, rather than one big net.
June 5 2009, 23:39:44 UTC 12 years ago
Also, wow, that was not my experience of Harvard. I'd hate to think the people ten years my junior aren't having the midnight debates about all manner of things that I and my friends did.
June 5 2009, 23:51:09 UTC 12 years ago
Yes...
June 6 2009, 02:30:47 UTC 12 years ago
June 6 2009, 22:00:49 UTC 12 years ago
Thoughts
June 6 2009, 02:47:57 UTC 12 years ago
Flavor of disagreement depends a lot on the environment and people involved. If people are resorting to ad hominem attacks, glittering generalities, or other logical fallacies, that's not a debate that will hold my interest. The idea of common ground is to find overlaps; actually shifting someone else's stance is a different concept altogether. If you're off your own base, that's not really common ground. And hunting for common ground is difficult or impossible if only one side is doing the work.
June 6 2009, 00:24:18 UTC 12 years ago
Just because an issue is being discussed and I have an opinion does not mean I have to express it. Nine times out of ten I am not going to convince somebody else of my POV anyway.
Also, LJ cuts can be useful. That means that those who vociferously disagree with me can see the topic on the cut and scroll blissfully on without spoiling their day.
Thoughts
June 6 2009, 01:22:23 UTC 12 years ago
June 6 2009, 02:27:33 UTC 12 years ago
I am not afraid of having my opinions challenged. I think some people are, and that is the difference between being willing to discuss things and not being willing to discuss them.
Thoughts
June 6 2009, 02:43:34 UTC 12 years ago
Exactly.
June 6 2009, 02:51:47 UTC 12 years ago
Re: Thoughts
June 6 2009, 03:07:17 UTC 12 years ago
I suppose I'm used to my friends-with-dissenting-opinions, who are generally good about presenting their disagreement-- you know "I think [this opposing viewpoint, and here is why]" versus "You're an idiot for thinking that!"
Debating points is valuable. Disparaging people is not.
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
Re: Thoughts
12 years ago
June 7 2009, 02:10:56 UTC 12 years ago
You can't have that, though. The pols I have to elect have pretty much bought the whole slate, all standard liberal or standard conservative. And you know why? The only thing the fanatics hate worse than someone who disagrees with them on everything is the "traitor" who agrees with them on all but one issue. They'd rather lose completely than compromise on one stinking issue out of a hundred. It's idiotic and it makes me crazy, but there you have it.
Thoughts
June 7 2009, 03:28:28 UTC 12 years ago