Bear with me: Even though you think you’re about to read another column on politics, I’m going to try and get through this without getting political.
How exactly am I going to do that? Well, we’ll see. To put it plainly, in the words of Michael Scott,
Sometimes I’ll start a sentence, and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way. Like an improv conversation. An improversation.
— Michael Scott
It’s no secret that a political conversation in 2018 causes most of us (definitely me) to rip our hair out when we try to discuss current issues with someone who is fundamentally different from ourselves. Red, blue, black, white, Lakers, Celtics; all differences that become magnified in a polarized “democracy.” (I’m more inclined to lean towards the Lakers side of the spectrum).
America’s political system has driven such passion within its people that the fog of emotion clouds the logical reasoning necessary for its functioning. All of that starts in each individual conversation.
One of the coolest moments of progress through conversation was on November 11’s Saturday Night Live, where Lt. Com. Dan Crenshaw and Pete Davidson shared a moment most won’t soon forget. (Please, watch all the way through).
What you just watched was not only a comedic funeral for Davidson, but a classy moment for both of them. Taking a problem, recognizing it, finding understanding and growing from it.
While I’m sure Davidson and Crenshaw have differing political views, they were never brought up during this segment. Yet, both the media and keyboards warriors were quick to view the original ill-mannered joke through a political lens. USA Today used the headline, “SNL: Pete Davidson slammed for mocking GOP veteran who lost eye…”
Not veteran, GOP veteran. Then, some folks on Twitter used the joke as evidence for SNL’s “liberal” viewpoints. Therein lies the problem.
To end this country’s dependency on party-driven discourse, we must refrain from referring to ideas as “liberal” or “conservative” and discuss them as “beneficial” or “legitimate.” The system has evolved to divide for the sake of keeping power; but it wasn’t BUILT that way.
Issues are no longer met with critical thinking, evidence gathering and reasoning. Now solutions to the country’s most important issues are radically found within the banter of evocative language. Those looking for power or looking to keep it use emotion rather than reason to drive the public opinion.
A certain president made this pretty clear in his Farewell Address:
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” — George Washington
In plain English, Washington was warning of the problems of having political parties in a government that governs with consent of the people. The thirst for power would drive the actions of the parties, looking to exact revenge on each other and keep the government’s duty to the people unfulfilled.
This becomes relevant to the idea of “improving discourse through each conversation” since our motivations have become based upon defeating the other side.
All of this became incredibly clear when I had a conversation with my friend’s roommate. My friend is on one side of a spectrum, while his roommate is on the other. I find myself drifting in the middle, searching through the BS for reason and direction.
We got to the point of immigration, and without digging deep into specifics, I knew I was in for a real deep conversation. The PTSD of past debates ran through my mind in a flash, as I anticipated myself walking out of the door bewildered in mere moments. The extremism was closing in; there was no way I was going to break someone so stuck in the mud on one side.
Something had to change. Instead of digging into the petty details that become so attached to parties and sides, I decided to take the conversation in a different direction. Not about what the left or right is doing (faulty generalization) but the fine details of the actual human issue.
The results were astounding. For thirty minutes, we went back and forth as I recounted experiences, what I had witnessed, and delved into the incentives behind issues and why people decide to do things. What motives lie behind moving to the United States as a part of a caravan, knowing the persecution and consequences for doing so? Why is it beneficial for everyone when this happens, and how can we make it a win-win?
I left shaking his hand, feeling true happiness and pride knowing that we made progress and started understanding, rather than competing.
When we argue and try to compete in debates to show which side’s idea is better, WE ALL LOSE. When we attempt to find a solution that does the most benefit and makes the world a little bit better, WE ALL WIN.
Yes, I guarantee there’s one of you out there thinking that a collaborative approach to difficult problems “is not what’s best for America.” If so, let me know when a partisan Congress does something great for America, and maybe I’ll entertain a more competitive mindset.
A wise person once said,
We all do better when we all do better.
— My high school principal
Shouldn’t our approach to crafting policy be based upon this principle? Shouldn’t our discussion involve “what’s best” and “what’s reasonable” rather than “who’s right?”
Let’s try to make an improvement in discussion, as Americans on the same team. In order for each conversation to become more intelligent, more productive and change the discourse of America, we must view issues through these four lenses:
UNDERSTANDING
When we argue based on our own personal experiences and nothing else, we eliminate the relevant information of millions of other Americans.
Understanding what the motives and reasons behind others’ actions and why other people see an issue a certain way helps us find a more balanced course of action and reasonable discussion.
If you can’t make the other person’s argument for them, then the discussion is bound to end in someone walking out. Changing the perspective might allow us to find a solution where there wasn’t one previously.
MOTIVATION
Understanding ties greatly into motivation. Are we motivated in our discussions by the hope of a better solution and a better country, or are we motivated by “winning” the argument and fighting back against the other side?
“Winning” arguments for psychological pleasure is the quickest way to create a negative discourse. We shouldn’t debate to win, but rather for better understanding. (Unfortunately, as seen in all TV debates ever, we try to find a winner afterward).
NUANCE
Life is much more nuanced than red and blue, and in a world where extremes go viral, we lose sight of the gray matter that defines the complexity of our politics. If we can be more nuanced in our discussions and our solutions, we can make positive progress.
Rarely are the best solutions found at an extreme end of the spectrum. Why are sunsets and sunrises so beautiful? They represent a perfect mix of the two extremes; night and day.
COLLABORATION vs. COMPETITION
This isn’t the Super Bowl. This is America. (Insert Childish Gambino joke here).
When we attempt to compete and exact revenge upon the other side as Washington warned, it doesn’t drive the public discourse towards a greater future. We continue to put each other down, and it causes us to sink further in the quicksand of abhorrence. The goal should always be to make a better America for everyone, not for one side.
Whew… that was a lot. I’m exhausted. Who knew fixing a country could be so dehydrating.
I hope that in your life, you attempt to make the other person’s argument for them and become more nuanced in your discussion. It might help avoid those heated discussions at the dinner table (mashed potatoes and extremism don’t mix)!
That way, our political discourse becomes a driving force for progress, rather than driving all of us six feet under.
