I think the reason I have a number of friends who have been good friends for many years is because I can say "Let's agree to disagree" and they can do that. Most of my friends are either very conservative or very liberal. Few are in the murky waters in the middle, like me.
I was reminded of the fact that this country has become disturbingly divided when I read this excellent piece in the New York Times, The Dying Art of Disagreement.
An excerpt from this piece really hit home for me:
"We disagree about racial issues, bathroom policies, health care laws, and, of course, the 45th president. We express our disagreements in radio and cable TV rants in ways that are increasingly virulent; street and campus protests that are increasingly violent; and personal conversations that are increasingly embittering.
This is yet another age in which we judge one another morally depending on where we stand politically."
This REALLY hit home, and made me stop and think how I would feel if one of my kids married someone I disagreed with politically:
"The polarization is personal: Fully 50 percent of Republicans would not want their child to marry a Democrat, and nearly a third of Democrats return the sentiment. Interparty marriage has taken the place of interracial marriage as a family taboo."
Of course, part of my pausing to think included me wondering if I would be more disturbed by one of my kids marrying a diehard Democrat or a diehard Republican. I am still thinking over that one.
I have friends who no longer speak to me because they disagreed with me during the last presidential election. It bothers me that they cannot see that I did what I always do, every four years, voted for the lesser of two evils. I couldn't even debate with them about it, they just un-friended me on Facebook and in actual life, mush to my sadness.
Last night I mentioned to my son that I think pro athletes should show respect for our national anthem and not use a sporting event as a political platform. I didn't expect the violent response I got from him. He literally shouted at me until I just stopped trying to talk to him. I found it a little frightening, frankly, because I wanted him to just calmly talk to me and explain why he disagreed, not shout me down.
Of course, when I read the New York Times article this morning it really resonated because I thought of Michael's reaction last night.
Unlike most 21 year olds around here, my son wasn't born into middle class or wealthy privilege. He lived a pretty wild existence his first 8 years with an alcoholic birthmom, often homeless and hungry. He didn't get appeasement instead of discipline. He didn't get any participation trophies.
However, he is susceptible to influence by other people his own age, and they do not brook disagreement.
As writer Bret Stephens points out that many millennials consider it "...“acceptable” for a student group to shout down a speaker with whom they disagree. An astonishing 20 percent also agree that it’s acceptable to use violence to prevent a speaker from speaking."
Everything is offensive nowadays. Everyone is "spoiling for a fight" as my daddy used to say. How can one argue anything if there's a huge fear of offending some group?! Stephens illustrates this well:
"The result is that the disagreements we need to have — and to have vigorously — are banished from the public square before they’re settled. People who might otherwise join a conversation to see where it might lead them choose instead to shrink from it, lest they say the “wrong” thing and be accused of some kind of political -ism or -phobia. For fear of causing offense, they forego the opportunity to be persuaded."
What is the remedy for this situation? I don't know. I don't agree with everything Stephens says in his article. I am not sure journalism is the cure. However, I will note this -- journalism today is more infotainment than it was when I was a kid. I watched a lot of news programs as a kid because during the commercials I could actually talk to my dad. He rarely sat still except to watch the news at night, so there were only small windows of time when I could talk to him. All that news watching made me aware of the greater world outside myself more so than many of my peers.
However, maybe journalism is our only hope.
I sometimes think my curse is that I am always able to see both sides of any question.
I understand the viewpoint of the athletes who "take a knee" during the national anthem. They are trying to illustrate that people of color in America often aren't treated fairly. They aren't, oftentimes. It's a valid point. I just don't think their protests are the best way to effect real change.
We are all biased, even those of us who are wicked smart.
I have a friend who is homeschooling her kids and overall doing a terrific job, except for one thing. She doesn't encourage any of them to go to college. She didn't go. However, she is one of the smartest people I know and I am often in awe of her ability to express herself in writing. (She blogs.) Truthfully, only perhaps one or two of her many children might do well in college. However, it's impossible to point out to her that her own personal bias shouldn't extend to her kids. She cannot see it.
I have dealt with that before.
I grew up with parents who said YOU WILL go to college. No discussion. I asked my Dad if I could take off a year after high school and just work and his response was a vehement NO. So I started college at 17 but I think I would have really done better if I had taken off that year, grown up a bit more. My parents were able to pay for my college without me having to get loans and pay them back, or work to pay my tuition, and so they viewed my not wanting to start college right away as evidence of ingratitude. They both had to work very hard to get through school, with little or no help from parents.
The point I am trying to make is that we are all prisoners of our individual life experiences. How can we really "think outside the box" if we cannot acknowledge there actually IS a box and we are in it?!
When I was in high school I took a class in debating. I was assigned to debate with another student and I had to argue that Communism was a good thing for China. I didn't agree with that, but as an intellectual exercise it was good for me to have to research and present that point of view. However, the teacher assigned the opposite view to a student who was Asian, whose parents had fled communist China. Very smart girl. She didn't do as well as I did in the debate because to her it was personal. It was impossible for her to be really objective and she got upset with me for taking the opposite side. We were casual friends before the debate but afterwards she wouldn't speak to me. It hurt my feelings, but it taught me a harsh lesson: it's all personal. All of it.
Journalism will never be truly objective because we journalists are human. However, we must STRIVE to be objective, even if it's an unobtainable goal. We must try. We must try to understand views different from our own. We must listen. We must research. If we don't, if we allow blind anger to prevail, everybody loses.
We must teach our children to try and really understand the views of people we disagree with. The kids need to put down their phones and actually talk to each other. They have to try. Only when this current climate of divisiveness cools down will I feel less anxious about the future.
